Conditions: Diabetes
Keywords: nursing home facility long-term care facility older patients elderly patients hyperglycemia type 2 diabetes
Allocation: RANDOMIZED | Intervention model: PARALLEL
Enrollment: 140
Healthy volunteers: no

Brief summary:
This is a study to determine whether glycemic control, as measured by change in HbA1c and frequency of hypoglycemia, is different between treatment with linagliptin (Tradjenta®) and basal insulin in long term care residents(LTC) with Type 2 diabetes(T2D). Patients with poorly controlled diabetes (HbA1c \>7.5%) will be randomized to a 6-month intervention with linagliptin or glargine insulin (± metformin for both treatments). Our hypothesis is that treatment with linagliptin, a once daily DPP4-inhibitor, will result in similar improvement in glucose control but in a lower rate of hypoglycemia than insulin treatment in LTC residents with T2D. We will also determine differences in clinical outcome, resource utilization, and hospitalization costs between LTC residents with T2D treated with linagliptin and basal and correction insulin. We will compare differences in complications (infectious and non-infectious, neurological and cardiovascular events), emergency room visits and hospitalizations between groups during the 6 months of intervention.

Detailed description:

Arms:
arm 1: Insulin glargine starting at 0.1 unit/kg/day added to ongoing metformin if the patient is already on it. The duration will be for a 6-month period. arm 2: Oral linagliptin 5mg once daily added to ongoing metformin if the patient is already on it. The duration will be for a 6-month period.

Interventions: intervention 1: linagliptin intervention 2: insulin glargine
Intervention descriptions: intervention 1: 5mg linagliptin tablets intervention 2: None

Protocol document:
Prot_SAP_000.pdf: 
 
A Randomized Controlled Study Comparing a DPP4 Inhibitor (Linagliptin) and Basal  
Insulin (Glargine) in Long-Term Care Residents With Type 2 Diabetes 
 
Principal Investigator: Guillermo Umpierrez, MD 
 
IRB00071545 
NCT02061969 
 
Document Date 08/11/2017 
 


Guillermo E, Umpierrez, M.D. 
ADA- Lilly Clinical Research Award:  
Diabetes Care in Older Adults  
 
 
A Randomized Controlled Study Comparing a DPP4 Inhibitor (Linagliptin) and Basal 
Insulin (Glargine) in Long-Term Care Residents with Type 2 Diabetes 
I. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND SPECIFIC AIMS 
Diabetes mellitus is highly prevalent in the elderly, afflicting >25% of older adults aged 65-75 
years and 40% of adults >80 years of age 1,2. The prevalence of DM continues to increase in the 
United States, and older adults have the highest prevalence of any age group 3 . Between 2001 
and 2010, the percentage of people with diabetes increased by 127% (9.1% to 20.7%) for those 
aged 65–74 years, and 126% (8.9% to 20.1%) for those aged 75 years and older 3. The 
prevalence of diabetes in long-term care facilities (LTC) has been reported between 15% and 
32% 4-7. Elderly patients with diabetes have increased risk of complications compared to 
nondiabetic subjects 8-11.  Several observational studies have reported benefits of improved 
glucose control on the rate of metabolic complications and quality of life in elderly patients with 
diabetes 8-10; however, no randomized clinical trials have determined best treatment strategies 
(insulin vs. oral agents) or what are the benefits of glucose control in clinical outcome and 
resource utilization in LTC residents. 
 
In a recent observational study in LTC facilities 12 we reported i) a diabetes prevalence of 32.5% 
with most patients treated with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) alone or in combination with sliding 
scale regular insulin, ii) high frequency (44%) of hypoglycemic events, and iii) residents with 
hypoglycemia have a longer length of stay, emergency room or hospital transfers, and higher 
mortality compared to those without hypoglycemia (see preliminary results). In a pilot study in 
LTC patients with diabetes, we randomized 100 patients with diabetes to receive low-dose basal 
(glargine) insulin and rapid-acting insulin before meals or to continue OADs (metformin and/or 
sulfonylurea) plus regular insulin before meals for BG > 200 mg/dl. We observed similar 
improvement in HbA1c at 3 and 6 months and in the frequency of hypoglycemia (basal 28% vs. 
control 31%; please see preliminary results). The results of our preliminary studies indicate the 
need for safe and effective protocols to achieve glucose control with a low rate of hypoglycemia. 
We propose two strategies that have been shown to improve glucose control with low rates of 
hypoglycemia in the hospital, which could be easily implemented in LTC facilities 13,14.  The ‘basal 
plus’ approach with a daily dose of glargine plus correction doses of rapid-acting insulin was 
shown to be as effective as basal bolus regimen in improving glucose control in general medicine 
and surgery patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) 13. The sitagliptin inpatient trial 14 reported that 
treatment with DPP4 inhibitor alone or in combination with insulin glargine results in similar 
glucose control compared to a basal bolus regimen in inpatients with T2D. No clinical trials have 
determined the safety and efficacy of basal insulin (standard of care) and DPP4 inhibitors in LTC 
facilities. Accordingly, we propose a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing treatment 
with a DPP4 inhibitor (linagliptin) to a basal plus (glargine) regimen (± metformin for both 
treatments) in LTC residents with T2D. 
 
Specific Aim and Hypothesis: 
Aim 1.  To determine whether glycemic control, as measured by change in mean BG, 
HbA1c and frequency of hypoglycemia, is different between treatment with linagliptin 
(Tradjenta®) and basal insulin in LTC residents with T2D. Patients with poorly controlled 
diabetes (HbA1c >7.5%) will be randomized to a 6-month intervention with linagliptin or glargine 


insulin (± metformin for both treatments).   
Hypothesis:  Treatment with linagliptin, a once daily DPP4-inhibitor, will result in similar 
improvement in glucose control but in a lower rate of hypoglycemia than insulin treatment in LTC 
residents with T2D. 
Aim 2.  To determine differences in clinical outcome, resource utilization, and 
hospitalization costs between LTC residents with T2D treated with linagliptin and basal 
plus insulin.  We will compare differences in complications (infectious and non-infectious, 
neurological and cardiovascular events), emergency room visits and hospitalizations between 
groups during the 6 months of intervention.  
Hypothesis:  Treatment with linagliptin will result in similar number of complications and resource 
utilization compared to insulin treatment in LTC residents with T2D diabetes. 
II. 
BACKGROUND AND CURRENT STATUS OF WORK IN THE FIELD. 
Prevalence of diabetes in the elderly and long-term care facilities.  The prevalence of 
diabetes mellitus increases with age, and it is estimated that more than 20% of older adults aged 
65-75 years and 40% of adults >80years of age have diabetes 1,2.  The prevalence of diabetes in 
the elderly is expected to increase due to longer life expectancy and improve care of the 
population 2,15. The estimated prevalence of diabetes in LTC facilities is reported to be ~ 15% to 
32% 4, and in parallel to the increasing geriatric population, the number of LTC facilities is 
expected to rise 15.  
Management of diabetes in the elderly and long-term care facilities.  The goals of diabetes 
care in older adults, as in younger persons, include control of hyperglycemia and its symptoms, 
prevention and treatment of macrovascular and microvascular complications, and maintenance 
or improvement of general health status. Studies in adult patients with diabetes have clearly 
shown that improvement in glucose control results in reduction in long-term microvascular 
complications and in significant cost savings 9,10,16; however, there are no prospective studies to 
determine the impact of improving glucose control on clinical outcome and health care cost in the 
elderly and LTC population. The management of diabetes in LTC residents is similar to that 
recommended for ambulatory patients with diabetes 17,18; however, several factors complicate the 
management of hyperglycemia in this population 19. Elderly people tend to have higher rates of 
comorbidities associated with aging such as premature death, functional disability, hypertension, 
coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular events, depression, cognitive impairment, urinary 
incontinence, falls, and pain.  In addition, elderly patients with diabetes often experience changes 
in their nutritional intake and organ dysfunction, which increase the risk of complications and 
hypoglycemia 16,19-21. Thus, benefits of improving glucose control must be balanced against the 
significant risks of side effects and hypoglycemia. 
Current guidelines and position statements on diabetes management in LTC setting 11,22-24 are 
mainly based on consensus opinions or from extrapolations from studies involving middle-aged 
patients with diabetes. The 2013 American Diabetes Association guidelines recommend that older 
adults who are functional, cognitively intact, and have significant life expectancy should receive 
diabetes care with goals similar to those developed for younger adults 23.  In these subjects, a 
HbA1c level <7.0 %, a fasting glucose between 90-130 mg/dl, and a random glucose <180 mg/dl 
is recommended. Less intensive goals are recommended for patients with advanced diabetes 
complications, life-limiting comorbid illness, or substantial cognitive or functional impairment.  
Similarly, the American Geriatric Society recommends a goal HbA1c ≤7.5% in healthy adults with 
intact cognitive and functional status; however, a higher HbA1c, ranging from 8% to 8.5% is more 
appropriate in the presence of comorbidities, frailty, impaired cognitive and functional status and 
increased risk of hypoglycemia 11,24.  The European Diabetes Working Party for Older People 


guidelines recommend a target HbA1c of 7-7.5% for patients without major co-morbidities while 
a higher target of 7.6-8.5% is proposed for frail patients with high risk of hypoglycemia 22,25. More 
recently, the International Association of Gerontology and Geriatrics, the European Diabetes 
Working Party for Older People, and the International Task Force of Experts in Diabetes 
recommended an HbA1c target of 7%–7.5% but emphasized the need to individualize glucose 
goals based on comorbidities, cognitive and functional status 22.  All of these guidelines highlight 
the importance of avoiding hypoglycemia, as it has been associated with increased risk of 
complications and mortality in patients with diabetes 12,26-29. 
Pharmacological therapy in elderly LTC residents with type 2 diabetes.  Metformin is 
recommended as first choice OAD agent for the management of adult and elderly patients with 
type 2 diabetes 23,30.  However, it may cause anorexia, nausea, diarrhea, weight loss, and risk of 
lactic acidosis in patients with impaired renal and hepatic function 31,32.  Insulin secretagogues are 
effective in reducing glucose levels, but are associated with increased risk of hypoglycemia 33. 
Thiazolidinediones improve insulin sensitivity but frequently cause weight gain, edema, 
osteopenia and are contraindicated in subjects with heart failure 33,34. The α-glucosidase inhibitors 
delay carbohydrates absorption, but are associated with a high rate of GI side effects 32. Few 
studies have addressed the safety and efficacy of DPP4 inhibitors in elderly patients 35,36.  DPP4-
inhibitors; however, are promising agents in the elderly because they stimulate insulin secretion 
in a glucose-dependent fashion, thus not causing hypoglycemia when used as monotherapy or in 
combination with metformin therapy 37-39. In addition, they have a low rate of side effects and can 
lower cardiovascular risks by reducing inflammation and oxidative stress, and by improving 
endothelial function 39-41.  Among FDA approved DPP4 inhibitors, linagliptin has unique PK and 
PD profile in the treatment of elderly LTC residents including a rapid-onset of action and efficacy 
in reducing fasting and postprandial glucose levels with low risk of hypoglycemia 42-44.  Linagliptin 
is rapidly absorbed after oral administration, with a maximum plasma concentration occurring 
after ~ 90 minutes, a long terminal half-life (>100 hours), and a short accumulation half-life of ~ 
10 hours. It is eliminated primarily in feces, with only around 5% of the oral therapeutic dose 
excreted in the urine 
45,46. There are no clinically relevant alterations in linagliptin 
pharmacokinetics resulting from renal impairment or hepatic impairment 46-48.  
Insulin therapy is widely recommended for diabetes management in LTC residents 49,50.  Clinical 
guidelines recommend initiating insulin when lifestyle modifications and oral agents fail or are 
contraindicated, and when random blood glucose levels are > 180 mg/dL 49,50. These practice 
guidelines favor the use of physiologic (basal and nutritional-correction dose) insulin regimens 
over sliding scale regular insulin 51-53.  Basal insulin (glargine, detemir, NPH) is used alone or in 
combination with rapid-acting prandial analogs (lispro, aspart, glulisine) or regular insulin. The 
use of basal bolus insulin has been shown to improve glycemic control 54-56 and to reduce 
complications in general medicine and surgery patients in the hospital 56; however, the use of a 
basal bolus approach is difficult to implement during periods of poor oral intake or in elderly LTC 
patients at risk of hypoglycemia.  In our preliminary studies in LTC facilities, treatment with basal 
bolus improved glucose control but was associated with ~30% risk of hypoglycemia (see 
preliminary results). New insulin regimens such as basal plus approach 13 with a single dose of 
basal insulin and correction doses of rapid acting insulin if needed may represent an alternative 
to basal bolus resulting in similar glucose control and low rate of hypoglycemia in LTC residents.  
Significance and Innovation.  No prospective randomized trials have determined the best 
treatment strategies and the benefits of improved glucose control on clinical outcomes in 
residents in LTC facilities. In addition, no previous studies have reported on the relationship or 
association between glucose control, complications and hospitalization cost in LTC facilities. 
Our preliminary studies indicate that most LTC residents are treated with OADs alone or in 
combination with regular sliding scale or basal bolus insulin.  More than 30% of LTC patients 


with diabetes experienced hypoglycemia during a 6-month period, and those with hypoglycemia 
had more emergency room visits and hospital transfers, and higher mortality compared to 
residents without hypoglycemia.  Thus, clinical trials aiming for improved glucose control and 
low rate of hypoglycemia are needed in this vulnerable population. This proposal aims to test 
the safety and efficacy of two novel treatment approaches in LTC facilities – the basal plus 
insulin regimen and DPP4 inhibitors. Both of these regimens were recently reported to be 
effective in improving glucose control with low rate of hypoglycemia in the hospital setting 13,14 
and could be easily implemented in LTC setting. We selected the use of linagliptin in this 
proposal due to its safety and no dose adjustment needed in elderly patients with reduced 
kidney function.  Although basal insulin and DPP4 inhibitors represent promising treatment 
alternatives to basal bolus insulin regimen or other treatment modalities, randomized clinical 
studies are needed to determine their efficacy and safety in the management of elderly patients 
in LTC facilities.  
 
This proposal is innovative and will provide important novel clinical information. This is the first 
prospective RCT to compare glucose control, resource utilization and hospitalization costs 
between treatment with insulin and DPP4 inhibitors, alone or in combination with metformin, in 
LTC residents with type 2 diabetes. It is not known if insulin therapy, which may be expected to 
result in lower daily glucose and HbA1c but in higher number of hypoglycemic events, will reduce 
infectious and noninfectious complications and lower resource utilization and costs compared to 
patients treated with DPP4 inhibitors.  In this trial, we selected two treatment regimens that have 
been proven to be effective in improving glucose control with a low rate of hypoglycemia and 
could become standard of care for elderly LTC residents with type 2 diabetes. 


III. 
PRELIMINARY RESULTS: 
Basal Bolus insulin trials in hospitalized patients with diabetes.  We have reported several 
prospective, randomized multi-center trials that show that treatment with basal or basal plus 
prandial insulin regimens are superior to sliding scale alone for the treatment of general medicine 
and surgery patients with T2D 10,54. In addition, the Rabbit Surgery trial 57, reported similar 
improvement in glucose control and lower rate of a composite of complications including wound 
infection, pneumonia, respiratory failure, renal failure, and bacteremia in general surgery patients.  
In these studies, the rate of hypoglycemia with the use of basal bolus approach in the hospital 
setting ranged between 3% and 32% 54-56.     
Basal Plus approach in general patients with T2D.   The 
recently reported Basal Plus trial 58 recruited 375 patients with 
T2D treated with diet, oral antidiabetic agents or low-dose 
insulin (≤ 0.4 unit/kg/day) to receive a ‘Basal Bolus’ regimen 
with glargine once daily and glulisine before meals, a ‘Basal 
Plus’ regimen with glargine once daily and supplemental 
doses of glulisine, and sliding scale regular insulin (SSI).  This 
trial reported that treatment with basal plus corrections 
resulted in similar improvement in glycemic control and in the 
frequency of hypoglycemia compared to a standard basal 
bolus regimen. In addition, treatment with basal bolus and 
basal plus resulted in less treatment failures than treatment 
with SSI. A BG <70 mg/dL occurred in 16% of patients in 
basal bolus and 12% in basal.  We concluded that the use of 
a basal plus regimen is an effective alternative to basal bolus 
in general patients with T2D.  
Sitagliptin Inpatient Pilot Study 14.  In a two-center open-
label randomized pilot trial we recently determined 
differences in glycemic control between sitagliptin alone or 
in combination with basal insulin and basal bolus regimen in 
medicine and surgery patients with T2D (Figure 3).  In this 
study, 90 patients with a BG between 140-400 mg/dl treated 
with diet, OAD or low-dose insulin (≤ 0.4 U/kg/day) were 
randomized to sitagliptin once daily (n=30), sitagliptin and 
basal insulin (n=30) and to a basal bolus (n=30) regimen. 
Treatment with sitagliptin alone or in combination to glargine 
resulted in similar glycemic control compared to basal bolus. 
There were no differences in hypoglycemia, frequency of 
treatment failures, length of stay or hospital complications. 
These results indicate that treatment with a DPP-4 inhibitor 
is safe and effective in the hospital management of T2D 14.  
Cost Analysis of Diabetes Care in General Surgery 
Patients.   Adeel et al. 73rd ADA meeting, June 2013.  A post-hoc cost analysis of 
hospitalization costs and charges in the RABBIT Surgery trial revealed that improvement of 
glucose control using basal bolus resulted in significantly lower hospital costs than treatment 
with sliding scale insulin (SSI) ($23.8±11 vs. $29.4±19 K USD, p=0.03). Subgroup analysis on 
each complication revealed that the total hospital cost for patients with wound infection was 
approximately 2 times higher than those without them ($45.5±33 vs. $26±15 K USD, p=0.02), 
and that the hospital cost for those with pneumonia or bacteremia was 3 times higher than those 
without complications ($71.5±41 vs. $26±14 K USD, p=0.001, and $67.5±47 vs. $26±14 K USD, 
Fig 2- Sitagliptin Inpatient trial 
p= NS 


p=0.006 respectively). These results indicate that improvement of BG control reduces hospital 
complications, perioperative complications and resource utilization, and hospitalization cost in 
patients undergoing general surgery. 
Diabetes and Clinical Outcome in Long-term Care Residents 12. This observational study 
analyzed the quality of diabetes care, glycemic control, and clinical outcome in 1,409 subjects 
admitted to 3 community LTC facilities in Atlanta.  The prevalence of diabetes was 34.2%. On 
admission, patients with diabetes were either on no pharmacological agents (10%) or were 
treated with, sliding scale regular insulin (SSI, 25%), OADs (5%), insulin (34%), or with 
combination of OADs and insulin (26%). Patients with diabetes had higher number of 
complications (p<0.001) and required more emergency room and hospital transfers (p=0.013).  
A Cox proportional hazards model revealed that a history of diabetes is associated with a higher 
risk of mortality (HR: 1.44, p=0.027).  A total of 42% of patients had ≥ 1 episode of BG <70 
mg/dl and 7% had a BG <40 mg/dl. Hypoglycemia was reported in 45% on OADs (mostly 
sulfonylurea plus SSI), 53% on glargine, 67% on NPH or premixed insulin, 20% patients on SSI 
alone. Patients with hypoglycemia had a longer length of stay (p<0.001), higher emergency 
room or hospital transfers (44% vs. 30%; p= 0.004) and higher mortality (18% vs. 10%, 
p=0.015).  These results indicate that diabetes is common in LTC and is associated with higher 
resource utilization and complications, and that hypoglycemia is associated with increased rates 
of emergency room care and hospitalization, length of stay, and mortality 12.  
Randomized Controlled Pilot Study on the Efficacy and Safety of Basal Bolus Insulin 
Regimen in Long-Term Care Residents. This pilot, prospective, RCT randomized patients from 
2 LTC university-affiliated facilities with A1C >7.5%, treated with diet and/or with stable dose of 
OADs to glargine (starting at 0.1 U/kg/day) plus correction doses of glulisine before meals for BG 
> 200 mg/dl, n=46) or to continue OAD and sliding scale insulin before meals (n=54) for 26 weeks. 
Primary endpoints were differences in mean fasting and daily BG, change in A1C, and 
hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dl).  There were no differences in daily glucose or with the A1C at 3 
months (149±28 vs 136±26 mg/dl and 7.5±0.7% vs 7.2±0.8%, p= NS) or at 6 months (172±19 vs 
148±27 mg/dl and 6.7±0.1% vs 6.6±0.9%, p NS) or in the number of patients with hypoglycemia 
(basal 28% vs. control 31%, p=0.37). The results of this study suggest that patients in LTC 
facilities can achieve similar improvement in glycemic control, without differences in mean daily 
BG, hypoglycemia with basal insulin or with OADs and SSI supplements. 
Table.  Glycemic control at 3 and 6 month therapy with basal bolus and OADs plus sliding scale  
 
Basal Insulin 
OAD + SSI 
Fasting BG at 3 mo, mg/dl 
132±27 
123±24 
Daily BG at 3 mo, mg/dl 
159±30 
138±27† 
Fasting BG within 80-180 mg/dl, % 
95 
96 
A1C at 3 months, % 
7.5±0.7 
7.2±0.8 
Fasting BG at 6 mo, mg/dl 
132.4±27 
123.0±24 
Daily BG at 6 mo, mg/dl 
159.6±30 
137.6±27 
A1C at 6 months, % 
6.7±0.1 
6.6±0.9 
*p=<0.05; †p<0.01 
 
Summary:  These preliminary studies highlight our experience in conducting RCT and cost 
analysis studies in patients with diabetes in the hospital and LTC facilities. Our preliminary studies 
indicate that diabetes is common in LCT residents and is associated with higher resource 
utilization, and that treatment-related hypoglycemia is associated with increased rates of 
emergency room care and hospitalization, and mortality.  In our cross-sectional study, we 
observed that 44% patients with diabetes had ≥ 1 episode of BG <70 mg/dl.  Patients with 


hypoglycemia had a longer length of stay, higher emergency room or hospital transfers, and 
higher mortality compared to those without hypoglycemia. In our pilot RCT, basal bolus insulin 
and OAD plus sliding scale regular insulin resulted in similar in glucose control, complications and 
in ~30% rate of hypoglycemia indicating the need for effective treatment regimens with lower rates 
of hypoglycemia. The proposed RCT will provide clinically important and novel information on 
glucose control, clinical outcome, resource utilization and hospitalization costs in LTC residents 
with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin and DPP4 inhibitor.  
 


IV. 
EXPERIMENTAL PLAN 
Aim 1.  To determine whether glycemic control, as measured by change in mean BG, 
HbA1c and frequency of hypoglycemia, is different between treatment with linagliptin 
(Tradjenta®) and basal insulin in LTC residents with T2D.  
IV.a. Rationale.  Diabetes affects one-third of elderly patients in LTC facilities 4-7. Management 
of hyperglycemia in LTC residents is challenging because of the high prevalence of comorbidities, 
organ dysfunction, and changes in nutritional intake that could increase the risk of hypoglycemia 
19.  Most patients in LTC facilities are managed with OADs alone or in combination with insulin 
with a reported ~30% incidence of hypoglycemia 49,50. LTC residents with hypoglycemia require 
more emergency room and hospital transfers, as well as higher mortality compared to those 
without hypoglycemia 12. Our recent ‘basal plus’ approach with a daily dose of glargine plus 
correction doses with rapid-acting insulin is as effective as basal bolus regimen in patients with 
T2D, with low rates of hypoglycemia 13. Similarly, the recent Sitagliptin Inpatient Trial 14, reported 
that treatment with sitagliptin alone or in combination with low-dose glargine result in similar 
glucose control compared to basal bolus regimen in medicine and surgery patients. The efficacy 
of basal plus regimen and DPP4 inhibitors in lowering blood glucose with a low-risk of 
hypoglycemia make these treatment ideal for the management of elderly; however, no clinical 
studies have determined their efficacy and safety in LTC facilities. Accordingly, we propose a 
prospective randomized controlled study to test the efficacy and safety of a DPP4 inhibitor and 
basal insulin for the management of LTC residents with type 2 diabetes. 
 
IV.b. 
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS 
A total of 150 male or female LTC residents with type 2 diabetes with an fasting or random BG >/= 
180 mg/dL and/or an A1c > 7.5% while receiving treatment with diet (no pharmacological therapy), 
OADs (metformin, secretagogues, thiazolidinediones), low dose insulin of 0.1U/kg/day or sliding 
scale regular insulin will be randomized to receive linagliptin or glargine insulin therapy. 
This study will be performed at Crestview, a community LTC institution affiliated with Grady Health 
System; Budd Terrace on the Wesley Woods campus of Emory University; and the Community 
Living Center at the Atlanta VA Medical Center, Atlanta. 
 
IV.c. 
Primary and Secondary Research Outcomes: 
The primary endpoint of the study is change in mean BG over a 6-month treatment period between 
treatment with basal plus insulin regimen and aDDP4 inhibitor in LTC residents with poorly 
controlled diabetes.   
Secondary outcomes include differences between treatment groups in any of the following 
measures:  
1. Percentage of HbA1c ≤ 7.5% at 3 or 6 month independent of the occurrence of hypoglycemia. 
2. Occurrence rate and total number of hypoglycemic events (<70 mg/dl) and severe 
hypoglycemia (< 40 mg/dl). 
3. Total daily dose of insulin, metformin and linagliptin. 
4. Change in hemoglobin A1c over a 6-month treatment period 
5. Changes in cognitive function assessed by mini-mental examination. 
6. Prevalence of acute complications (urinary tract infections, pneumonia), bedsores, diabetic 
foot infection. 
7. Need for emergency room visits or hospitalizations during the study period. 
8. Cardiac complications are defined as myocardial infarction, cardiac arrhythmia and heart 
failure. 
9. Acute renal failure defined as a clinical diagnosis of acute renal failure with documented new-
onset abnormal renal function (increment > 0.5 mg/dL from baseline). 


+RVSLWDOPRUWDOLW\0RUWDOLW\LVGHILQHGDVGHDWKRFFXUULQJGXULQJDGPLVVLRQ

,9G
3ODQ7KLVVWXG\ZLOOLQFOXGHPDOHRUIHPDOHVXEMHFWVDGPLWWHGWR/7&DIILOLDWHGZLWK*UDG\
+HDOWK6\VWHP(PRU\8QLYHUVLW\+RVSLWDODQG9$0&LQ$WODQWD*HRUJLD'XHWRWKHGHVLJQRI
WKLVVWXG\LHHQUROOPHQWRIVXEMHFWVDGPLWWHGIRU/7&WKHUHZLOOEHQRUXQLQSHULRG$OOUHVLGHQWV
ZLWK D NQRZQ KLVWRU\ RI GLDEHWHV DQG DQ +EJ$F ! GHVSLWH WUHDWPHQW ZLWK GLHW QR
SKDUPDFRORJLFDOWKHUDS\VWDEOHGRVHRI2$'VPHWIRUPLQVHFUHWDJRJXHVWKLD]ROLGLQHGLRQHV
RU VOLGLQJ VFDOH LQVXOLQ WKHUDS\ ZLOO EH FRQVLGHUHG DV SRWHQWLDO FDQGLGDWHV LQ WKLV VWXG\ 7KH
FRQVHQW IRUP ZLOO EH SUHVHQWHG DQG GLVFXVVHG WR SULPDU\ FDUH WHDP DQG SDUWLFLSDQWV DQGRU
UHODWLYHVSULRUWRSDUWLFLSDWLRQLQWKHVWXG\











x3DWLHQWVUHFHLYLQJQRSKDUPDFRORJLFDODJHQWVZLOOEHUDQGRPL]HGWRUHFHLYHRQFHGDLO\OLQDJOLSWLQ
RUJODUJLQHLQVXOLQDVPRQRWKHUDS\
x3DWLHQWV UHFHLYLQJ 2$'V ZLOO GLVFRQWLQXH WKHVH DJHQWV DW HQUROOPHQW ZLWK WKH H[FHSWLRQ RI
PHWIRUPLQXQOHVVFRQWUDLQGLFDWLRQ3DWLHQWVZLOOFRQWLQXHWKHUDS\ZLWKPHWIRUPLQDWWKHVDPH
GRVDJHDQGZLOOVWDUWFRPELQDWLRQWKHUDS\ZLWKOLQDJOLSWLQRUJODUJLQHLQVXOLQDGGRQWKHUDS\
x3DWLHQWV ZKR DUH QRW FDQGLGDWH WR PHWIRUPLQ WKHUDS\ LH UHGXFHG NLGQH\ IXQFWLRQ RU *,
LQWROHUDQFHZLOOEHWUHDWHGZLWKRQFHGDLO\OLQDJOLSWLQRUJODUJLQHLQVXOLQDVPRQRWKHUDS\
x)RUVDIHW\UHDVRQSDWLHQWVLQERWKJURXSVZLOOUHFHLYHVXSSOHPHQWDOFRUUHFWLRQGRVHVRIUDSLG
DFWLQJLQVXOLQOLVSURRUDVSDUWEHIRUHPHDOVIRU%*!PJGO
x7KHJRDORIWKHUDS\LVWRPDLQWDLQIDVWLQJDQGSUHPHDOEORRGJOXFRVHPJG/DQGDQ$&
ZKLOHDYRLGLQJK\SRJO\FHPLD

,9H
6WXG\*URXSV
*URXS%DVDO3OXVUHJLPHQZLWKJODUJLQHRQFHGDLO\PHWIRUPLQQ 
*URXS/LQDJOLSWLQRQFHGDLO\PHWIRUPLQQ 
*5283/LQDJOLSWLQ*URXS


• 
Discontinue oral antidiabetic drugs (except metformin if no contraindication), insulin and 
non-insulin injected antidiabetic medication on admission. 
• 
Start linagliptin 5 mg once daily  
• 
Start accuchecks with meals and at night.  Can reduce to twice a day when appropriate. 
 
GROUP 2. Glargine Insulin Group  
• 
Discontinue oral antidiabetic drugs (except metformin if no contraindication), insulin and 
non-insulin injected antidiabetic medication on admission. 
• 
Start accuchecks with meals and at night.  Can be reduce to twice a day when appropriate. 
• 
Starting total daily insulin dose: 0.1 units per kg once daily at the same time of the day.  
• 
Insulin adjustment.  The total daily insulin dose will be adjusted as follow:  
• 
Fasting and pre-meal BG between <180 mg/dl without hypoglycemia the previous day: 
no change  
• 
Mean fasting and pre-meal BG between 181-280 mg/dl without hypoglycemia: 
increase glargine dose by 10% every 3 days 
• 
Mean fasting and pre-meal BG >281 mg/dl without hypoglycemia: increase glargine 
dose by 20% every 3 days  
• 
Mean fasting and pre-meal BG between <100 mg/dl: decrease glargine dose by 10% 
every day 
• 
If a patient develops hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL), decrease glargine dose by 20%.   
• 
If a patient develops hypoglycemia (<40 mg/dL), decrease glargine dose by 30-40%.   
 
 
• 
Blood glucose monitoring.  Blood glucose will be measured before each meal (or every 6 
hours if a patient is not eating) using a glucose meter.  In addition, blood glucose will be 
measured at any time if a patient experiences symptoms of hypoglycemia or if requested by 
the treating physician.   
 
 
 
IV.f. Investigational drugs. 
1. Linagliptin (Tradjenta®) 5 mg tablets for oral administration. Linagliptin is not a formulary drug 
at Grady Health System and VAMC and will be provided by Boehringer Ingelheim 
Pharmaceuticals, Inc (see letter of support, page 76) 
2. Glargine insulin:  U-100/mL, provided in 10 mL vials. Glargine (Lantus®) is available in all 
institutions. 
 
IV.g. 
Withdrawal Criteria 
1. The subject may withdraw at any time during the study by primary care provider or research 
team. 
2. The subject may be withdrawn at the investigator’s discretion due to a safety concern or if 
judged non-compliant with trial procedures or for contravention to the inclusion and/or 
exclusion criteria. 
3. Subject diagnosed with acute pancreatitis by clinical and/or radiographic criteria. 
4. Patients with severe hyperglycemia defined as 3 consecutive BG levels > 280 mg/dl or 2 
consecutive days with an average BG > 280 mg/dL will be considered as failure and discontinued 
from the study. Patients receiving linagliptin therapy will be switched to basal plus insulin and those 
on basal insulin will be switched to basal bolus insulin regimen.   
 


IV.h. 
Subject Replacement 
There will be no replacement of subjects in this trial. 
 
IV.i. 
During follow up we will collect the following information 
1. Glycemic control: 
a. Mean daily fasting and premeal blood glucose levels.  
b. HbA1c at baseline, 3 and 6 months of discharge 
c. Number of hypoglycemic events  
2. Diabetes treatment: 
a. Number of patients receiving supplements and dosage as well as metformin 
therapy. 
b. Protocol adherence by LTC facility 
3. Clinical Outcome (see Aim 2): 
a. Hospital readmissions, emergency room visits, infectious and non-infectious 
complications 
 
V. Aim 2.  To determine differences in clinical outcome and resource utilization between 
treatment with linagliptin and basal insulin in LTC residents with T2D.   
Rationale. Benefits of improved glucose control on clinical outcomes and hospitalization costs in 
elderly residents in LTC facilities have not been determined in prospective RCT. This study will 
compare differences in complications (infections and non-infection, neurological and 
cardiovascular), resource utilization and hospitalization costs between basal insulin or with 
linagliptin therapy. We expect that patients treated with basal insulin may have lower daily glucose 
and HbA1c levels, but higher number of hypoglycemic events.  It is not clear if the lower glucose 
and HbA1c levels will reduce complications, resource utilization and costs compared to patients 
treated with DPP4 inhibitors who may experience less glucose control but lower hypoglycemic 
events.   
V.a.  Data collection and data entry.  Baseline and daily information will be entered by the study 
coordinators into data collection paper forms and into an electronic database (RedCap) provided 
by the Emory Research Information Technology Department.  Baseline data will include 
demographics/history form (subject gender, age, ethnicity, type of treatment and comorbid 
conditions, body weight, BMI, laboratory results.  Daily information will be collected on treatment, 
nutrition, blood glucose and laboratory values, hospital complications and adverse events 
(hypoglycemia). 
 
V.b.  Resource utilization.  We will prospectively collect information on emergency room visits 
and hospitalizations, laboratory, pharmacy, consultation services and radiology services, as well 
as presence of complications including pneumonia, acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, 
acute renal failure, wound infections and bedsores, cerebrovascular events, and other 
complications. 
 
V.c.  Financial assessment.  The Analytic Information Warehouse (AIW) infrastructure program 
will be utilized to support extraction, mapping and modeling of electronic health record information 
from Grady and Emory health records and billing systems.  The AIW infrastructure is designed to 
allow analysts to transform heterogeneous sets of variables into systematically defined core set 
of data elements. Data will be collected prospectively and also extracted for each patient using 
ICD-9 codes for demographics, complications, and use of resources including laboratory, 
radiology, and pharmacy utilizations as well as total charges during the study period. Differences 
will be expressed by applying Medicare Cost Report cost-to-charge ratios to the charge data using 
Medicare Hospital Cost Report publish by the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) 
(https://wwws.gov/CostReports/02 HospitalCostReport.asp).  Based on CMS review of Emory 


Long Term Care facilities 2012 cost report, the inpatient cost to charge ratio will be 0.421 for 
patients admitted in 2013. Data set will be queried to allow analysis of complications, laboratory, 
pharmacy, consultation services and radiology costs.  
 
V.d.  Assessment and Monitoring of Nosocomial Infections.  Nosocomial infections will be 
diagnosed based on standardized CDC criteria 59.  New infections will not be diagnosed until 48 
hr after study initiation to minimize the chance that the infection was actually present prior to study 
initiation.  
 
V.e.  Monitoring of renal function.  Acute renal failure is defined as an increment > 0.5 mg/dl 
from baseline. 
 
V.f.  Cerebrovascular accident.  Defined as neurologic deficit persisting > 72 hr, transient 
ischemic attack, deficit resolving within 24 hours, or deficit lasting > 24 - < 72 h (reversible 
ischemic neurologic deficit). 
 
V.g.  Major Cardiovascular Events (MACE).  All outcome data will be defined per standard 
American College of Cardiology–American Heart Association definitions:  
• 
Acute myocardial infarction: (1) increase in troponin and creatine kinase (MB) markers with at 
least one of the following: (a) ischemic symptoms, (b) development of pathologic Q waves on 
EKG, (c) electrocardiographic changes indicative of ischemia (ST-segment elevation or 
depression), or (d) coronary artery intervention (e.g., coronary angioplasty) 60.   
• 
Congestive heart failure on chest radiograph and with appropriate clinical symptoms/signs 60. 
• 
Cardiac arrhythmias: malignant arrhythmia [asystole, ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation] 60 
. 
 
VI. 
Methods and Procedures Applied to Human Subjects: 
VI.a. 
Subject Population: 
This study will include 150 LTC facility residents with a known history of type 2 diabetes.  Patient 
selection will be determined by the set of inclusion and exclusion criteria. 
VI.b. 
Inclusion Criteria: 
1. Males or females with known history of type 2 diabetes, treated with diet, OADs as 
monotherapy or in combination therapy (excluding DPP4 inhibitors), low dose insulin of 
0.1U/kg/day or sliding scale insulin. 
2. Subjects with HbA1c > 7.5% or BG >/= 180 mg/dL. 
VI.c. 
Exclusion Criteria:  
1. Subjects with a history of type 1 diabetes or with a history of diabetic ketoacidosis 61.  
2. Treatment GLP1 analogs during the past 3 months prior to admission. 
3. Recurrent severe hypoglycemia or hypoglycemic unawareness. 
4. Subjects with history of gastrointestinal obstruction or gastroparesis. 
5. Patients with acute or chronic pancreatitis or pancreatic cancer. 
6. Patients with clinically significant hepatic disease (cirrhosis, jaundice, end-stage liver 
disease, portal hypertension) and elevated ALT and AST > 3 times upper limit of normal, 
or significantly impaired renal function (GFR < 45 ml/min). 
7. Treatment with corticosteroids, parenteral nutrition and immunosuppressive treatment. 
8. Mental condition rendering the subject unable to understand the nature and scope of the 
study. 
 
VII. 
CLINICAL MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES  
VII.a.  Admission Laboratory Studies 
 


Standard of care laboratory studies including glucose, HbA1c, chemistry, hematology, and urine 
will be measured on admission and as determined by the treating physician.   
VII.b. Treatment of Hypoglycemia 
Hypoglycemia (glucose <70 mg/dL) will be treated following approved protocol.  
• 
If patient is alert and can tolerate oral intake, give 20 grams of fast-acting carbohydrate. 
• 
If patient not alert and cannot tolerate oral intake, give1ampule (25 mL) IV of Dextrose 50%, 
or 1 amp of glucagon IM or SC 
• 
Check finger stick BG q 15 minutes and repeat above treatment until BG > 100 mg/dL. 
o If BG < 70 mg/dL, call MD and repeat hypoglycemia orders (above) 
VIII. 
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS  
VIII.a.  Sample Size and Power Calculations: This study is randomized, open-label controlled 
trial. The primary endpoint in this study is glycemic control measured change determined by mean 
daily blood glucose concentrations and in HbA1c at 3 and 6 months of intervention.  The median 
stay at all facilities was 48.9±50 days, therefore the study did not have power to determine a 
statistical change in glycated hemoglobin at 6 months. The primary endpoint of the study was 
modified to evaluate the difference between treatment with basal insulin and linagliptin on 
glycemic control determined by mean daily blood glucose concentrations during LTC stay, as 
previously reported (62). Main secondary endpoints included differences in the frequency of 
hypoglycemia, fasting glucose, HbA1c at 3 and 6 months of intervention, complications, 
emergency room visits and hospitalizations. We made the comparisons using non-parametric 
Wilcoxon tests for continuous variables and χ2 tests (or Fisher’s exact test) for discrete variables. 
We summarize demographics, baseline clinical characteristics, and clinical outcomes by the two 
treatment groups. Data is presented as mean ± standard deviation for continuous variables and 
present count (percentage) for categorical variables. Glycemic variability was calculated by 
standard deviation (SD) of glucose values during entire study and by the mean daily delta (Δ) 
daily range of blood glucose (daily max – daily mini- mum)(20, 24).The data were presented as 
mean (SD) for continuous variables and count (percentage) for discrete variables unless specified 
otherwise. We performed statistical analyses with SAS version 9.3. 
VIII.b. Analysis of Primary Endpoint:   
To compare differences between treatment groups on glycemic control determined by mean daily 
blood glucose concentrations. We defined non-inferiority for the primary endpoint of mean blood 
glucose as a difference < 18 mg/dl (1 mmol/L) with linagliptin versus basal insulin. A blood glucose 
difference of such a magnitude has been reported as non-clinically significant in the hospital 
setting, and is smaller than significant treatment effects in other superiority trials [58,63,64] Based 
on our preliminary data in LTC [62, we assumed a standard deviation of 40 mg/dl change is 
bounded above by 1%. With a one-sided two-sample t-test, alpha=0.05, with Bonferroni correction 
applied to adjust for multiple comparisons across different days on therapy, and after adjusting 
for 10–15% attrition, a total of 64 patients were required for both the linagliptin and the basal group 
to ensure 80% power to reject the non- inferiority hypothesis. This leads to a final total sample 
size estimate of 140 participants. 
VIII.c. Analysis of Secondary Endpoints:  Secondary endpoints include outcomes on 
hypoglycemia, complications, HbA1c, resource utilization and costs. For hypoglycemia outcomes, 
we will first conduct nonparametric comparisons of the rate of hypoglycemia based on a two-sided 
Chi-square test (or Fisher’s exact test in the presence of low incidence rates), followed by the 
Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, which adjusts for the potential center effect. Univariate Poisson 
regression (or Negative Binomial regression) will be performed to assess whether there is any 
difference in the number of hypoglycemia events between the two treatment groups. We will 
further conduct multivariate Logistic regression, Poisson regression (or negative binomial 


regression) to estimate the difference in the rate and frequency of hypoglycemia while adjusting 
for relevant covariates. Stepwise, backward, or forward model selection strategy will be adopted 
to determine the variables to be included in the final model. Standard diagnostic and model 
checking procedures, such as deviance residual plot and Hosmer-Lemeshow test, will be applied 
to examine the fit of the developed models. 
 
The primary cost outcome is the overall resource utilization converted to cost figures based on 
cost-to-charge ratio. We will first compare the overall cost between groups using two-sample t-
tests or nonparametric Wilcoxon tests. We will perform multivariate linear regression to evaluate 
the group difference while accounting other possible confounders. To address the potential 
skewness of cost distribution, we may adopt Log or other appropriate transformations. We will 
also consider multivariate median regression, which is expected to be more robust in the 
presence of outliers compared to linear regression. Model selection and model checking will be 
performed in multivariate analyses.  
For other secondary endpoints such as itemized resources utilization, complications, need for 
emergency room and hospitalization we will use the analytic strategy proposed for the primary 
endpoint to analyze continuous secondary outcomes, and the approach proposed for the 
hypoglycemia outcome to analyze other discrete secondary outcomes.  A p-value less than 0.05 
will be considered significant. Statistical analysis will be performed using the SAS (version 9.2; 
SAS Institute, Cary, NC).   
 
IX. 
Potential Risks to the Subject: 
Hypoglycemia. Hypoglycemia is defined as capillary and/or laboratory glucose <70 mg/dL and 
severe hypoglycemia is defined as glucose < 40 mg/dL. We expect that ~20% of subjects treated 
with basal insulin will experience hypoglycemia and < 5% in patients treated with linagliptin.  
Hyperglycemia.  In the Basal Plus Trial and Sitagliptin trial, 12-18%% of patients had glucose 
readings >200 mg/dL. We expect that < 20% of BG readings in subjects treated with basal plus 
regimen or with linagliptin plus rapid-acting insulin analogs will have a glucose > 200 mg/dl. In 
this analysis, severe hyperglycemia is defined as a capillary and/or laboratory BG >300 mg/dL.   
X. 
Protection against Risks:  
We will follow safeguards to minimize the risk to our subjects: a) we will carefully monitor capillary 
blood glucose using hand-held glucose meters, b) only experienced nurses/or phlebotomist will 
draw blood samples, and c) no patients with significant liver and renal impairment will be recruited 
in this study.    
Hypoglycemia:  We expect that approximately 12% of subjects treated with basal plus and < 5% of 
linagliptin group will experience one or more episodes of hypoglycemia.  Hypoglycemia will be 
treated with standard treatment protocols available at each institution.   
Hyperglycemia:  supplemental insulin will be given before meals to cover for BG >200 mg/dl. 
Patients with persistent hyperglycemia defined as 3 consecutive BG levels > 280 mg/dl or 2 
consecutive daily average >15.5 mmol/L (280 mg/dL) will be considered as failure and will be 
discontinued from the study. Patients receiving linagliptin will be switched to basal and those on basal 
will be switched to basal bolus regimen.   
Acute renal failure: patients with GFR <45 ml/min will not be treated with metformin.  
XI.  Data handling and record keeping:  Data collection records with personal identifiers will be 
stored in locked file cabinets. No blood samples will be stored in this study. Access to research 
will be limited to clinical investigators, research coordinators, and the IRB at Emory University. 


XII. Storage and Drug Accountability of Study Medication(s).  Linagliptin will be stored and 
dispensed by the research pharmacy at each institution. Glargine insulin is standard of care and 
is available at the three participating institutions and will be dispensed by general inpatient 
pharmacy. 
XIII. 
Randomization and Blinding.  This is an open label randomized controlled trial.  Patients 
will be randomized consecutively using a computer generated randomization table provided by 
Dr. Limin Peng at the Emory School of Public Health.  The randomization table will be mailed to 
the research pharmacist at each institution who will be in charge of the randomization and group 
assignment.  
XIV. 
  Informed Consent. .  Informed consent will be obtained before any trial related 
procedures including screening procedures. The consent form will follow the IRB guidelines of 
Emory University.  A signed copy of the consent will be provided to the participant and a copy of 
the consent will be placed in the study office.   
XV. 
Inclusion of women:  We anticipate that ~50% of the study subjects will be female.  
XVI. 
Inclusion of minorities:  Patients will not be excluded based on race or ethnic origin.  We 
anticipate that half of patients will be African Americans, 10% Hispanics, and the rest Caucasians.   
XVII. 
Inclusion of children:  No patients under the age of 18 will be recruited in this study. 
XVIII.  Financial Conflict of Interests.  None of the investigators in this study have any outside 
activities that may represent a conflict of interest.  
 
XIV.  
Data Safety Monitoring Plan. 
A Data Safety Monitoring Board or Safety Officer has been designated for this study.   
 
Mary Rhee, MD 
Department of Medicine/Endocrinology 
 
Catherine Barnes, Ph.D. 
Department of Medicine/Endocrinology 
 
The frequency of protocol review will be: every 6 months.   
 
The PI will forward reports of safety reviews within 15 days of the meeting to the Emory IRB. 
 
See full Data safety monitoring plan in the attachment labeled Data Safety Monitoring Plan. 
 


References 
1. 
Kamel HK, Rodriguez-Saldana J, Flaherty JH, Miller DK. Diabetes mellitus among ethnic 
seniors: contrasts with diabetes in whites. Clinics in geriatric medicine. 1999;15(2):265-278. 
2. 
Morley JE. An overview of diabetes mellitus in older persons. Clinics in geriatric medicine. 
1999;15(2):211-224. 
3. 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National diabetes fact sheet: national estimates and 
general information on diabetes and prediabetes in the United States A, GA: U.S. Department of 
Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011. Available at 
http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/factsheet11.htm. 
4. 
Mooradian AD, Osterweil D, Petrasek D, Morley JE. Diabetes mellitus in elderly nursing home 
patients. A survey of clinical characteristics and management. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1988;36(5):391-
396. 
5. 
Funnell MM, Herman WH. Diabetes care policies and practices in Michigan nursing homes, 
1991. Diabetes Care. 1995;18(6):862-866. 
6. 
Hauner H, Kurnaz AA, Haastert B, Groschopp C, Feldhoff KH. Undiagnosed diabetes mellitus 
and metabolic control assessed by HbA(1c) among residents of nursing homes. Experimental and 
clinical endocrinology & diabetes : official journal, German Society of Endocrinology [and] 
German Diabetes Association. 2001;109(6):326-329. 
7. 
Travis SS, Buchanan RJ, Wang S, Kim M. Analyses of nursing home residents with diabetes at 
admission. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. 2004;5(5):320-327. 
8. 
Rosenthal MJ. Analyses of nursing home residents with diabetes at admission. Journal of the 
American Medical Directors Association. 2004;5(5):353-355. 
9. 
Holt RM, Schwartz FL, Shubrook JH. Diabetes care in extended-care facilities: appropriate 
intensity of care? Diabetes Care. 2007;30(6):1454-1458. 
10. 
Migdal A, Yarandi SS, Smiley D, Umpierrez GE. Update on diabetes in the elderly and in nursing 
home residents. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. 2011;12(9):627-632 
e622. 
11. 
Association AMD. Diabetes Management in the Long Term Care Setting. Columbia, MD2007. 
12. 
Newton CA, Adeel A, Sadeghi-Yarandi S, et al. Prevalence, Quality of Care and Complications 
in Long-Term Care Residents with Diabetes: A Multicenter Observational Study. JAMDA. 2013. 
13. 
Umpierrez GE, Smiley D, Hermayer K, et al. Randomized study comparing a Basal-bolus with a 
Basal plus correction insulin regimen for the hospital management of medical and surgical 
patients with type 2 diabetes: Basal plus trial. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(8):2169-2174. 
14. 
Umpierrez GE, Gianchandani R, Smiley D, et al. Safety and Efficacy of Sitagliptin Therapy for 
the Inpatient Management of General Medicine and Surgery Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A 
pilot, randomized, controlled study. Diabetes Care. 2013. 
15. 
Boyle JP, Honeycutt AA, Narayan KM, et al. Projection of diabetes burden through 2050: impact 
of changing demography and disease prevalence in the U.S. Diabetes Care. 2001;24(11):1936-
1940. 
16. 
Shorr RI, Ray WA, Daugherty JR, Griffin MR. Incidence and risk factors for serious 
hypoglycemia in older persons using insulin or sulfonylureas. Archives of internal medicine. 
1997;157(15):1681-1686. 
17. 
Haas L. Management of diabetes mellitus medications in the nursing home. Drugs & aging. 
2005;22(3):209-218. 
18. 
Edge JA, Matthews DR, Dunger DB. Failure of current insulin regimes to meet the overnight 
requirements of adolescents with insulin-dependent diabetes. Diabetes Res. 1990;15(3):109-112. 
19. 
McNabney MK, Pandya N, Iwuagwu C, et al. Differences in diabetes management of nursing 
home patients based on functional and cognitive status. Journal of the American Medical 
Directors Association. 2005;6(6):375-382. 
20. 
Budnitz DS, Lovegrove MC, Shehab N, Richards CL. Emergency hospitalizations for adverse 
drug events in older Americans. The New England journal of medicine. 2011;365(21):2002-2012. 


21. 
Ben-Ami H, Nagachandran P, Mendelson A, Edoute Y. Drug-induced hypoglycemic coma in 102 
diabetic patients. Archives of internal medicine. 1999;159(3):281-284. 
22. 
Sinclair AJ, Paolisso G, Castro M, Bourdel-Marchasson I, Gadsby R, Rodriguez Manas L. 
European Diabetes Working Party for Older People 2011 clinical guidelines for type 2 diabetes 
mellitus. Executive summary. Diabetes & metabolism. 2011;37 Suppl 3:S27-38. 
23. 
Standards of medical care in diabetes--2013. Diabetes Care. 2013;36 Suppl 1:S11-66. 
24. 
Zarowitz BJ, Stefanacci R, Hollenack K, O'Shea T. The application of evidence-based principles 
of care in older persons (issue 1): management of osteoporosis. Journal of the American Medical 
Directors Association. 2006;7(2):102-108. 
25. 
Sinclair AJ. Good clinical practice guidelines for care home residents with diabetes: an executive 
summary. Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association. 2011;28(7):772-777. 
26. 
Gerstein HC, Miller ME, Byington RP, et al. Effects of intensive glucose lowering in type 2 
diabetes. The New England journal of medicine. 2008;358(24):2545-2559. 
27. 
Duckworth W, Abraira C, Moritz T, et al. Glucose control and vascular complications in veterans 
with type 2 diabetes. The New England journal of medicine. 2009;360(2):129-139. 
28. 
Patel A, MacMahon S, Chalmers J, et al. Intensive blood glucose control and vascular outcomes 
in patients with type 2 diabetes. The New England journal of medicine. 2008;358(24):2560-2572. 
29. 
Boussageon R, Bejan-Angoulvant T, Saadatian-Elahi M, et al. Effect of intensive glucose 
lowering treatment on all cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and microvascular events in type 
2 diabetes: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d4169. 
30. 
Garber AJ, Abrahamson MJ, Barzilay JI, et al. American association of clinical endocrinologists' 
comprehensive diabetes management algorithm 2013 consensus statement - executive summary. 
Endocr Pract. 2013;19(3):536-557. 
31. 
Ong CR, Molyneaux LM, Constantino MI, Twigg SM, Yue DK. Long-term efficacy of 
metformin therapy in nonobese individuals with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 
2006;29(11):2361-2364. 
32. 
Bloomgarden ZT. Approaches to treatment of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2008;31(8):1697-
1703. 
33. 
Nyenwe EA, Jerkins TW, Umpierrez GE, Kitabchi AE. Management of type 2 diabetes: evolving 
strategies for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes. Metabolism: clinical and 
experimental. 2011;60(1):1-23. 
34. 
Singh S, Loke YK, Furberg CD. Long-term risk of cardiovascular events with rosiglitazone: a 
meta-analysis. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association. 2007;298(10):1189-
1195. 
35. 
Paolisso G, Monami M, Marfella R, Rizzo MR, Mannucci E. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in 
the elderly: more benefits or risks? Advances in therapy. 2012;29(3):218-233. 
36. 
Scheen AJ. DPP-4 inhibitors in the management of type 2 diabetes: a critical review of head-to-
head trials. Diabetes & metabolism. 2012;38(2):89-101. 
37. 
Umpierrez GE, Meneghini L. Reshaping Diabetes Care: The Fundamental Role of DPP-4 
Inhibitors and GLP-1 Receptor Agonists in Clinical Practice. Endocr Pract. 2013:1-37. 
38. 
Lovshin JA, Drucker DJ. Incretin-based therapies for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Nature reviews 
Endocrinology. 2009;5(5):262-269. 
39. 
Barnett AH, O'Hare P. Cardiovascular benefits of incretins. BMJ. 2013;347:f4382. 
40. 
Zhong J, Rao X, Rajagopalan S. An emerging role of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) beyond 
glucose control: potential implications in cardiovascular disease. Atherosclerosis. 
2013;226(2):305-314. 
41. 
Yazbeck R, Howarth GS, Abbott CA. Dipeptidyl peptidase inhibitors, an emerging drug class for 
inflammatory disease? Trends in pharmacological sciences. 2009;30(11):600-607. 
42. 
Graefe-Mody U, Retlich S, Friedrich C. Clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of 
linagliptin. Clinical pharmacokinetics. 2012;51(7):411-427. 


43. 
Bromage PR, Shibata HR, Willoughby HW. Influence of prolonged epidural blockade on blood 
sugar and cortisol responses to operations upon the upper part of the abdomen and the thorax. 
Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1971;132(6):1051-1056. 
44. 
Nathanson D, Ullman B, Lofstrom U, et al. Effects of intravenous exenatide in type 2 diabetic 
patients with congestive heart failure: a double-blind, randomised controlled clinical trial of 
efficacy and safety. Diabetologia. 2007;55(4):926-935. 
45. 
Sonne DP, Engstrom T, Treiman M. Protective effects of GLP-1 analogues exendin-4 and GLP-
1(9-36) amide against ischemia-reperfusion injury in rat heart. Regul Pept. 2008;146(1-3):243-
249. 
46. 
Grunberger G. Clinical utility of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin. Postgraduate 
medicine. 2013;125(3):79-90. 
47. 
Ramirez G, Morrison AD, Bittle PA. Clinical Practice Considerations and Review of the 
Literature for the Use of DPP-4 Inhibitors in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Chronic Kidney 
Disease. Endocr Pract. 2013:1-33. 
48. 
Guedes EP, Hohl A, de Melo TG, Lauand F. Linagliptin: farmacology, efficacy and safety in type 
2 diabetes treatment. Diabetology & metabolic syndrome. 2013;5(1):25. 
49. 
Summary of revisions for the 2009 Clinical Practice Recommendations. Diabetes Care. 2009;32 
Suppl 1:S3-5. 
50. 
American Medical Directors Association. Diabetes management in the long-term care setting: 
Clinical practice guideline. Columbia MA, 2008. 
51. 
Inzucchi SE. Clinical practice. Management of hyperglycemia in the hospital setting. N Engl J 
Med. 2006;355(18):1903-1911. 
52. 
Clement S, Braithwaite SS, Magee MF, et al. Management of diabetes and hyperglycemia in 
hospitals. Diabetes Care. 2004;27(2):553-597. 
53. 
Draznin B, Gilden J, Golden SH, et al. Pathways to quality inpatient management of 
hyperglycemia and diabetes: a call to action. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(7):1807-1814. 
54. 
Umpierrez GE, Smiley D, Zisman A, et al. Randomized study of basal-bolus insulin therapy in 
the inpatient management of patients with type 2 diabetes (RABBIT 2 trial). Diabetes Care. 
2007;30(9):2181-2186. 
55. 
Umpierrez GE, Hor T, Smiley D, et al. Comparison of inpatient insulin regimens with detemir 
plus aspart versus neutral protamine hagedorn plus regular in medical patients with type 2 
diabetes. The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism. 2009;94(2):564-569. 
56. 
Umpierrez GE, Smiley D, Jacobs S, et al. Randomized study of basal-bolus insulin therapy in the 
inpatient management of patients with type 2 diabetes undergoing general surgery (RABBIT 2 
surgery). Diabetes Care. 2011;34(2):256-261. 
57. 
Umpierrez GE, Smiley D, Jacobs S, et al. RAndomized Study of Basal Bolus Insulin Therapy in 
the Inpatient Management of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Undergoing General Surgery 
(RABBIT Surgery). Diabetes Care. 2011;34(2):256-261. 
58. 
Umpierrez GE, Smiley D, Hermayer K, et al. Randomized Study Comparing a Basal Bolus With 
a Basal Plus Correction Insulin Regimen for the Hospital Management of Medical and Surgical 
patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Basal Plus Trial. Diabetes Care. 2013. 
59. 
Garner JS, Jarvis WR, Emori TG, Horan TC, Hughes JM. CDC definitions for nosocomial 
infections, 1988. Am J Infect Control. 1988;16(3):128-140. 
60. 
Alpert JS, Thygesen K, Antman E, Bassand JP. Myocardial infarction redefined--a consensus 
document of The Joint European Society of Cardiology/American College of Cardiology 
Committee for the redefinition of myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36(3):959-969. 
61. 
Kitabchi AE, Umpierrez GE, Murphy MB, et al. Hyperglycemic crises in diabetes. Diabetes 
Care. 2004;27 Suppl 1:S94-102. 
62. 
Pasquel FJ, Powell W, Peng L, et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing treatment with oral 
agents and basal insulin in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes in long-term care facilities. BMJ 
Open Diabetes Res Care. 2015;3(1):e000104. 


63. 
Haw JS, Farrokhi F, Smiley D, et al. Comparison of Basal Insulin Regimens on Glycemic 
Variability in Noncritically Ill Patients with Type 2 Diabetes. Endocr Pract. 2015;21(12):1333-
1343. 
64. 
Egi M, Bellomo R, Stachowski E, et al. Blood glucose concentration and outcome of critical 
illness: the impact of diabetes. Crit Care Med. 2008;36(8):2249-2255. 
65. 
Umpierrez GE, Casals MM, Gebhart SP, Mixon PS, Clark WS, Phillips LS. Diabetic ketoacidosis 
in obese African-Americans. Diabetes. 1995;44(7):790-795. 
66. 
Maldonado MR, Otiniano ME, Lee R, Rodriguez L, Balasubramanyam A. Ethnic differences in 
beta-cell functional reserve and clinical features in patients with ketosis-prone diabetes. Diabetes 
Care. 2003;26(8):2469. 
67. 
Mauvais-Jarvis F, Sobngwi E, Porcher R, et al. Ketosis-prone type 2 diabetes in patients of sub-
Saharan African origin: clinical pathophysiology and natural history of beta-cell dysfunction and 
insulin resistance. Diabetes. 2004;53(3):645-653.