Richardpruen (talk | contribs) (→Suggested additions to this page: Merged items into main page) |
|||
| Line 316: | Line 316: | ||
='''Arthritis/Skeletal'''= | ='''Arthritis/Skeletal'''= | ||
=== 2023: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36708864/ === | === 2023: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36708864/ Tobacco heating system has less impact on bone metabolism than cigarette smoke]=== | ||
* We found that, following acute or chronic exposure, particulate matter extract from the aerosol of an HTP, the Tobacco Heating System (THS), was less harmful to the bone coculture system than reference cigarette (1R6F) smoke extract. In the fracture healing model, cultures exposed to the THS extract maintained similar osteoclast activity and calcium deposits as control cultures. Conversely, smoke extract exposure promoted osteoclast activity, resulting in an osteoporotic environment, whose formation could be prevented by bisphosphonate coadministration. Thus, THS is potentially less harmful than cigarette smoke to bone cell differentiation and bone mineralization - both being crucial aspects during the reparative phase of fracture healing. | * We found that, following acute or chronic exposure, particulate matter extract from the aerosol of an HTP, the Tobacco Heating System (THS), was less harmful to the bone coculture system than reference cigarette (1R6F) smoke extract. In the fracture healing model, cultures exposed to the THS extract maintained similar osteoclast activity and calcium deposits as control cultures. Conversely, smoke extract exposure promoted osteoclast activity, resulting in an osteoporotic environment, whose formation could be prevented by bisphosphonate coadministration. Thus, THS is potentially less harmful than cigarette smoke to bone cell differentiation and bone mineralization - both being crucial aspects during the reparative phase of fracture healing. | ||
* Comment From Clive Bates: "A characteristically cautious statement. But still annoying as it gives no sense of the magnitude of "less harmful". I realise this is not a straightforward idea (see paper), but the harm reduction proposition is necessarily quantitative, even if expressed in pseudo-quantitative terms. If they want the harm reduction proposition to succeed these industries need to develop evidence-based metrics for communicating risk reduction. Eg. it required xx times the exposure to vape liquids to have the same effect as tobacco smoke." | * Comment From Clive Bates: "A characteristically cautious statement. But still annoying as it gives no sense of the magnitude of "less harmful". I realise this is not a straightforward idea (see paper), but the harm reduction proposition is necessarily quantitative, even if expressed in pseudo-quantitative terms. If they want the harm reduction proposition to succeed these industries need to develop evidence-based metrics for communicating risk reduction. Eg. it required xx times the exposure to vape liquids to have the same effect as tobacco smoke." | ||
edits