Trial reportJAMA2026
Fast Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing for Gram-Negative Bacteremia: The FAST Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in JAMA, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06174649 (Fast Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing for Gram Negative Bacteremia Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Fast Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing for Gram Negative Bacteremia Trial
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comparative analysis of performance and time-to-result for VITEK REVEAL versus MicroScan during antimicrobial susceptibility testing for gram-negative bacteremia.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Recent advances in screening, diagnosis, prognosis and personalized treatment of sepsis.European journal of microbiology & immunology · 2026Review
- Hour-1 Sepsis Bundle: Updated Evidence.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Comparative evaluation of EUCAST RAST and QuickMIC for rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing of carbapenem-resistant organisms directly from positive blood cultures.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- When Faster Diagnosis Is Not Enough: Bringing Diagnostic Stewardship into Antimicrobial Stewardship.Le infezioni in medicina · 2026Article
- Rapid Diagnostics and Rapid Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing for Bloodstream Infections: A Narrative Review and Proposed Clinical Actionability Framework.International journal of general medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Novel blood culture diagnostics provide rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) results for bacteria causing bloodstream infections (BSIs) but have unclear clinical impact. Objective: To evaluate clinical outcomes of blood culture testing using a rapid AST method compared with standard AST in patients with BSIs caused by gram-negative bacilli in regions with high prevalence of antimicrobial resistance. Design, Setting, and Participants: Open-label randomized clinical trial that enrolled participants from December 2023 to May 2025 (final follow-up, June 18, 2025) at 7 medical centers in Greece (n = 2), India (n = 1), Israel (n = 3), and Spain (n = 1). Hospitalized patients (adults and children) with BSIs caused by gram-negative bacilli were eligible. Statistical analysis was conducted from August 2025 to January 2026. Intervention: Patients were randomized to undergo blood culture evaluation using rapid, phenotypic AST directly from positive blood cultures plus standard susceptibility testing (n = 413) vs standard susceptibility testing alone (n = 437). Local antimicrobial stewardship teams reviewed all patients and provided treatment recommendations. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) at day 30, with 3 categories (alive without deleterious events, alive with deleterious events, and death). The difference between rapid and standard testing was summarized as the probability that the DOOR outcomes were more desirable in the rapid testing group. Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded 50%. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality, length of hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, acquisition of hospital-acquired infections, time to effective antibiotic therapy within 3 days, and time to antibiotic escalation or deescalation within 3 days. Results: Of the 899 patients randomized, 850 were included in the primary outcome analysis (median [IQR] age, 72 [21] years; 43% female). The probability that DOOR outcomes were more favorable in the rapid testing group was 48.8% (95% CI, 45.3%-52.4%). Median time to effective antibiotic therapy was not different between the groups in the as-randomized population. Median time to antibiotic escalation or deescalation was faster in the rapid testing group by 14 hours (95% CI, 6-22) in the as-randomized population. There were no differences between the groups in other secondary outcomes. In the prespecified subgroup with carbapenem-resistant infections, median time to effective therapy was 9.5 hours in the rapid testing group vs 28 hours in the standard testing group (difference, -18 hours [95% CI, -42 to 6]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with gram-negative bacilli BSIs, rapid blood culture AST was not superior to standard testing by DOOR. When considered with other efficacy and safety outcomes, these findings may help inform the use of rapid susceptibility testing in clinical practice. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06174649.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.