A rational approach to e-cigarettes: challenging ERS policy on tobacco harm reduction

We wish to thank Britton et al. 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 countries like Australia, that has banned nicotine-containing e-cigarettes, has achieved similar results. Footnotes This manuscript has recently been accepted for publication in the European Respiratory Journal . It is published here in its accepted form prior to copyediting and typesetting by our production team. After these production processes are complete and the authors have approved the resulting proofs, the article will move to the latest issue of the ERJ online. Please open or download the PDF to view this article. Conflict of interest: Dr. Pisinger has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: Dr. Vestbo reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, grants and personal fees from Boehringer-Ingelheim, personal fees from Chiesi, personal fees from GSK, personal fees from Novartis, outside the submitted work; and his son is an employee of Chiesi.