Fast Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing for Gram-Negative Bacteremia: The FAST Randomized Clinical Trial
Clinical Snapshot
PICO Framework
| P — Population | Hospitalized adults and children with bloodstream infections caused by gram-negative bacilli in regions with high antimicrobial resistance prevalence |
| I — Intervention | Rapid phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) directly from positive blood cultures plus standard susceptibility testing |
| C — Comparator | Standard antimicrobial susceptibility testing alone |
| O — Outcomes | Primary: 30-day desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR). Secondary: 30-day mortality, length of hospitalization, ICU admission, hospital-acquired infections, time to effective antibiotic therapy, time to antibiotic escalation/deescalation |
Bottom Line
This large multicentre trial found that rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing for gram-negative bacteremia did not improve clinical outcomes compared to standard testing. While rapid testing reduced time to antibiotic adjustment by 14 hours, this did not translate to meaningful differences in mortality, length of stay, or other patient-centred outcomes. The study was well-designed but limited by its open-label nature. For Australian clinicians, these findings suggest that while rapid AST technology may have operational benefits, the clinical impact appears modest. Investment in rapid diagnostics should be considered alongside other antimicrobial stewardship interventions, particularly given the lack of demonstrated superiority in patient outcomes. The technology may have greater utility in specific subgroups, such as carbapenem-resistant infections, where faster time to effective therapy was observed.
Key Findings
P Value: Not explicitly reported for primary outcome
Effect Size: No significant difference in primary composite outcome
Primary Outcome: DOOR at 30 days: 48.8% probability of more favourable outcomes with rapid testing
Nnt Or Sensitivity: Time to antibiotic adjustment 14 hours faster (95% CI 6-22 hours) with rapid testing
Confidence Interval: 95% CI 45.3%-52.4% for primary outcome probability
Clinical Application
Requires rapid AST technology and antimicrobial stewardship infrastructure Relevant to Australian hospitals with increasing antimicrobial resistance. TGA-approved rapid diagnostic platforms available. May inform PBS considerations for diagnostic technologies and RACGP antimicrobial stewardship guidelines Hospitalized patients with gram-negative bacteremia, particularly in settings with high antimicrobial resistance
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.
References
- 1.Banerjee, R., Komarow, L., Li, Y., Mau, D., Dodd, A., Geres, H., Greenwood-Quaintance, K., Adler, A., Baliga, S., Chowers, M., Chrysos, G., Zarkotou, O., Paul, M., Pournaras, S., Regueiro, D. S., Evans, S., Chambers, H., Fowler, V. G., & Patel, R. (2026). Fast Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing for Gram-Negative Bacteremia: The FAST Randomized Clinical Trial. *JAMA*. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2025.101570
Related Research
Journal of medical Internet research
Advancing Human-Centered AI in Clinical Decision Support: Sociocognitive Human-in-the-Loop Study in HIV Care
2 Aug 2026
JBJS reviews
One-Stage or Two-Stage Revision for Infected Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Head-to-Head Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies
30 July 2026
Signal transduction and targeted therapy
Mucosal immunity and vaccine development
27 July 2026
This content is for educational purposes for healthcare professionals only and does not constitute clinical advice. Clinical decisions should be based on individual patient assessment, current guidelines, and appropriate specialist consultation. Editorial Standards · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service