O

Osamu Takahashi

Tokyo Medical University Hachioji Medical Center

ORCID: 0000-0002-6454-3990

Publishes on Urinary Bladder and Prostate Research, Pelvic floor disorders treatments, Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins. 877 papers and 12.1k citations.

877Publications
12.1kTotal Citations

Is this you? Claim your profile.

Add your photo, update your bio, and get notified when your ranking changes.

Top publicationsby citations

Durvalumab With or Without Tremelimumab for Patients With Metastatic Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma
Cited by 755Open Access

IMPORTANCE: New therapeutic options for patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) are needed. This study evaluated dual checkpoint combination therapy in patients with mPDAC. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the anti-PD-L1 (programmed death-ligand 1) antibody using either durvalumab monotherapy or in combination with the anticytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 antibody using durvalumab plus tremelimumab therapy in patients with mPDAC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Part A of this multicenter, 2-part, phase 2 randomized clinical trial was a lead-in safety, open-label study with planned expansion to part B pending an efficacy signal from part A. Between November 26, 2015, and March 23, 2017, 65 patients with mPDAC who had previously received only 1 first-line fluorouracil-based or gemcitabine-based treatment were enrolled at 21 sites in 6 countries. Efficacy analysis included the intent-to-treat population; safety analysis included patients who received at least 1 dose of study treatment and for whom any postdose data were available. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received durvalumab (1500 mg every 4 weeks) plus tremelimumab (75 mg every 4 weeks) combination therapy for 4 cycles followed by durvalumab therapy (1500 mg every 4 weeks) or durvalumab monotherapy (1500 mg every 4 weeks) for up to 12 months or until the onset of progressive disease or unacceptable toxic effects. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Safety and efficacy were measured by objective response rate, which was used to determine study expansion to part B. The threshold for expansion was an objective response rate of 10% for either treatment arm. RESULTS: Among 65 randomized patients, 34 (52%) were men and median age was 61 (95% CI, 37-81) years. Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in 7 of 32 patients (22%) receiving combination therapy and in 2 of 32 patients (6%) receiving monotherapy; 1 patient randomized to the monotherapy arm did not receive treatment owing to worsened disease. Fatigue, diarrhea, and pruritus were the most common adverse events in both arms. Overall, 4 of 64 patients (6%) discontinued treatment owing to treatment-related adverse events. Objective response rate was 3.1% (95% CI, 0.08-16.22) for patients receiving combination therapy and 0% (95% CI, 0.00-10.58) for patients receiving monotherapy. Low patient numbers limited observation of the associations between treatment response and PD-L1 expression or microsatellite instability status. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Treatment was well tolerated, and the efficacy of durvalumab plus tremelimumab therapy and durvalumab monotherapy reflected a population of patients with mPDAC who had poor prognoses and rapidly progressing disease. Patients were not enrolled in part B because the threshold for efficacy was not met in part A. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02558894.

Home measurement of blood pressure and cardiovascular disease
Alison Ward, Osamu Takahashi, Richard Stevens et al.|Journal of Hypertension|2012
Cited by 297

OBJECTIVE: Examine the relationship between home blood pressure (BP) and risk for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular events. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies of home BP. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular events. We extracted hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) which were pooled with a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I statistic. RESULTS: We identified eight studies with 17 698 participants. Follow-up was 3.2-10.9 years. For all-cause mortality (n = 747) the hazard ratio for home BP was 1.14 (95% CI 1.01-1.29) per 10 mmHg increase in systolic BP compared to 1.07 (0.91-1.26) for office BP. For cardiovascular mortality (n = 193) the hazard ratio for home BP was 1.29 (1.02-1.64) per 10 mmHg increase in systolic BP compared to 1.15 (0.91-1.46) for office BP. For cardiovascular events (n = 699) the hazard ratio for home BP was 1.14 (1.09-1.20) per 10 mmHg increase in systolic BP compared to 1.10 (1.06-1.15) for office BP. In three studies which adjusted for office and home BP the hazard ratio was 1.20 (1.11-1.30) per 10 mmHg increase in systolic BP for home BP adjusted for office BP compared to 0.99 (0.93-1.07) per 10 mmHg increase in systolic BP for office BP adjusted for home BP. Diastolic results were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Home BP remained a significant predictor of cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular events after adjusting for office BP suggesting it is an important prognostic variable over and above that of office BP.