Extract
We wish to thank J. Britton and co-workers for responding to our editorial and giving us an opportunity to clarify our position as well as correct a few misunderstandings. We definitely share the same goal, which is to relieve Europe and the rest of the world from the terrible results of the tobacco epidemic. We also do not “blankly oppose e-cigarettes”; however, we strongly advocate against a harm reduction strategy including e-cigarettes as well as heated tobacco products [1]. As clinicians we all see reluctant smokers where e-cigarettes can be tried as a last resort for getting off cigarette smoking, but that is of little relevance for a general harm reduction strategy. We also agree that the UK has achieved a lot in the area of smoking cessation but would argue that this has been achieved by impressive tobacco control, not by the use of e-cigarettes, and that a country such as Australia, which has banned nicotine-containing e-cigarettes, has achieved similar results.
Abstract
Regarding the use of alternative nicotine delivery systems, ERS argues that including e-cigarettes in a harm reduction strategy is not evidence-based and may result in harm. Instead, we should support access to evidence-based smoking cessation methods. http://bit.ly/2TpUCYG
Footnotes
Conflict of interest: C. Pisinger has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: J. Vestbo reports personal fees for consultancy from AstraZeneca, grants and personal fees for consultancy and lectures from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees for consultancy and lectures from Chiesi, GSK and Novartis, outside the submitted work; and has a family member who is an employee of Chiesi.
- Received February 18, 2020.
- Accepted February 18, 2020.
- Copyright ©ERS 2020