%0 Journal Article
%T Individualized clinical decisions within standard-of-care pragmatic clinical trials: Implications for consent.
%A Astrachan IM
%A Flory J
%A Kim SY
%J Clin Trials
%V 0
%N 0
%D 2024 Aug 15
%M 39148241
%F 2.599
%R 10.1177/17407745241266155
%X Pragmatic clinical trials of standard-of-care interventions compare the relative merits of medical treatments already in use. Traditional research informed consent processes pose significant obstacles to these trials, raising the question of whether they may be conducted with alteration or waiver of informed consent. However, to even be eligible, such a trial in the United States must have no more than minimal research risk. We argue that standard-of-care pragmatic clinical trials can be designed to ensure that they are minimal research risk if the random assignment of an intervention in a pragmatic clinical trial can accommodate individualized, clinically motivated decision-making for each participant. Such a design will ensure that the patient-participants are not exposed to any risks beyond the clinical risks of the interventions, and thus, the trial will have minimal research risk. We explain the logic of this view by comparing three scenarios of standard-of-care pragmatic clinical trials: one with informed consent, one without informed consent, and one recently proposed design called Decision Architecture Randomization Trial. We then conclude by briefly showing that our proposal suggests a natural way to determine when to use an alteration versus a waiver of informed consent.