Featured Post from Aston University

Antimicrobial resistance now causes more deaths than HIV/AIDS and malaria worldwide – new study

Mar 7, 2022

4 min

Dr Jonathan A. G. Cox



Antimicrobial resistance is spreading rapidly worldwide, and has even been likened to the next pandemic – one that many people may not even be aware is happening. A recent paper, published in Lancet, has revealed that antimicrobial resistant infections caused 1.27 millions deaths and were associated with 4.95 million deaths in 2019. This is greater than the number of people who died from HIV/AIDS and malaria that year combined.


Antimicobial resistance happens when infection-causing microbes (such as bacteria, viruses or fungi) evolve to become resistant to the drug designed to kill them. This means than an antibiotic will no longer work to treat that infection anymore.


The new findings makes it clear that antimicrobial resistance is progressing faster than the previous worst-case scenario estimates – which is of concern for everyone. The simple fact is that we’re running out of antibiotics that work. This could mean everyday bacterial infections become life-threatening again.


While antimicrobial resistance has been a problem since penicillin was discovered in 1928, our continued exposure to antibiotics has enabled bacteria and other pathogens to evolve powerful resistance. In some cases, these microbes are resistant even to multiple different drugs. This latest study now shows the current scale of this problem globally – and the harm it’s causing.


Global problem

The study involved 204 countries around the world, looking at data from 471 million individual patient records. By looking at deaths due to and associated with antimicrobial resistance, the team was then able to estimate the impact antimicrobial resistance had in each country.


Antimicrobial resistance was directly responsible for an estimated 1.27 million deaths worldwide and was associated with an estimated 4.95 millions deaths. In comparison, HIV/AIDS and malaria were estimated to have caused 860,000 and 640,000 deaths respectively the same year. The researchers also found that low- and middle-income countries were worst hit by antimicrobial resistance – although higher income countries also face alarmingly high levels.


They also found that of the 23 different types of bacteria studied, drug resistance in only six types of bacteria contributed to 3.57 million deaths. The report also shows that 70% of deaths that resulted from antimicrobial resistance were caused by resistance to antibiotics often considered the first line of defence against severe infections. These included beta-lactams and fluoroquinolones, which are commonly prescribed for many infections, such as urinary tract, upper- and lower-respiratory and bone and joint infections.


This study highlights a very clear message that global antimicrobial resistance could make everyday bacterial infections untreatable. By some estimates, antimicrobial resistance could cause 10 million deaths per year by 2050. This would overtake cancer as a leading cause of death worldwide.


Next pandemic

Bacteria can develop antimicrobial resistance in a number of ways.


First, bacteria develop antimicrobial resistance naturally. It’s part of the normal push and pull observed throughout the natural world. As we get stronger, bacteria will get stronger too. It’s part of our co-evolution with bacteria – they’re just quicker at evolving than we are, partly because they replicate faster and get more genetic mutations than we do.


But the way we use antibiotics can also cause resistance.


For example, one common cause is if people fail to complete a course of antibiotics. Although people may feel better a few days after starting antibiotics, not all bacteria are made equal. Some may be slower to be affected by the antibiotic than others. This means that if you stop taking the antibiotic early, the bacteria that were initially able to avoid the effect of the antibiotics will be able to multiply, thus passing their resistance on.


Likewise, taking antibiotics unnecessarily can help bacteria to evolve resistance to antibiotics faster. This is why it’s important not to take antibiotics unless they’re prescribed, and to only use them for the infection they’re prescribed for.


Resistance can also be spread from person to person. For example, if someone who has antibiotic-resistant bacteria in their nose sneezes or coughs, it may be spread to people nearby. Research also shows that antimicrobial resistance can be spread through the environment, such as in unclean drinking water.


The causes driving this global antimicrobial resistance crisis are complex. Everything from how we take antibiotics to environmental pollution with antimicrobial chemicals, use of antibiotics in agriculture and even preservatives in our shampoo and toothpaste are all contributing to resistance. This is why a global, unified effort will be needed to make a difference.


Urgent change is needed in many industries to slow the spread of antimicrobial resistance. Of the greatest importance is using the antibiotics we have smarter. Combination therapy could hold the answer to slowing down antimicrobial resistance. This involves using several drugs in combination, rather than one drug on its own – making it more difficult for bacteria to evolve resistance, while still successfully treating an infection.


The next pandemic is already here – so further investment in research that looks at how we can stop this problem will be key.

Connect with:
Dr Jonathan A. G. Cox

Dr Jonathan A. G. Cox

Lecturer in Microbiology

Dr Cox's research interests surround the discovery of new antibiotics & identifying the mechanisms by which those antibiotics kill bacteria.

Health SciencesBiochemistryAntibioticsAntimicrobial ResistanceMicro-Organisms
Powered by

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Aston University

Twin earthquakes in Venezuela raise serious concerns over humanitarian, health and infrastructure impacts featured image

3 min

Twin earthquakes in Venezuela raise serious concerns over humanitarian, health and infrastructure impacts

Dr Komal Raj Aryal, lecturer in crisis and disaster management at Aston Business School, has expressed serious concern following the powerful twin earthquakes that struck northern Venezuela on 24 June 2026. "The back-to-back earthquakes, measuring magnitude 7.2 and 7.5 and occurring within less than a minute of each other at an approximate depth of 22 km, represent an exceptionally severe seismic event," said Dr Aryal, who has more than 26 years of international research experience in earthquakes, landslides, extreme weather events and disaster risk governance. "The combination of two major earthquakes occurring in rapid succession, their relatively shallow depths, and the repeated strong ground shaking is likely to have substantially increased damage to buildings, transport networks and other critical infrastructure. Scientifically, a magnitude 7.5 earthquake releases approximately three times more energy than a magnitude 7.2 event. Experiencing both events within seconds creates an extremely complex emergency response situation." Dr Aryal highlighted particular concern for San Felipe, an important industrial, commercial and transportation centre with a population of more than 300,000 people. Built across hilly terrain, with steep streets and dense urban development, the city could face significant challenges for emergency access, search and rescue operations, evacuation and humanitarian assistance. Around 10% of the city's population is aged 65 or older, making older adults particularly vulnerable during prolonged emergency situations. "If widespread power outages occur while temperatures remain between 32°C and 35°C, communities will face compounded risks including heat stress, disruption to healthcare services, shortages of clean water, communication failures and interruptions to essential public services. These cascading impacts often become as significant as the direct earthquake damage itself." Based on the available seismic information and preliminary footage shared on social media, Dr Aryal noted that it will likely take days or even weeks before authorities fully understand the extent of structural damage across northern Venezuela. "Initial seismic information suggests a rupture along a major fault system parallel to Venezuela's northern coastline, with areas experiencing extremely intense ground shaking. If confirmed, significant cascading impacts may extend well beyond the epicentral area, affecting multiple urban centres, transport corridors and regional supply chains." Dr Aryal also expressed concern about the resilience of Venezuela's healthcare system. "Northern Venezuela contains a large concentration of hospitals and healthcare facilities. At present, it remains unclear how many medical facilities have been affected by the earthquakes. Any disruption to hospitals, combined with existing pressures on healthcare capacity, medicine supplies and emergency logistics, could significantly affect the delivery of healthcare services for both acute injuries and patients with chronic illnesses." He added that damage to airports, major highways, bridges and other transport infrastructure could delay humanitarian assistance, emergency logistics and economic recovery. "The humanitarian consequences of this disaster will depend not only on the severity of the ground shaking, but also on the resilience of critical infrastructure, the effectiveness of emergency coordination, the availability of healthcare services and the country's broader socioeconomic capacity to recover." Dr Aryal further warned that the immediate earthquake sequence is unlikely to mark the end of the crisis. "Strong aftershocks are highly likely following earthquakes of this magnitude. These may continue for months, and some could themselves be damaging. They increase risks to already weakened buildings, complicate search and rescue operations, trigger additional landslides in mountainous areas, and prolong humanitarian needs." He concluded that while casualty figures and the full extent of the damage remain uncertain, the event has the potential to become one of the most significant seismic disasters in the region in recent years, requiring sustained national and international humanitarian support.

The world is burning useful waste, and cleaner alternatives are needed featured image

4 min

The world is burning useful waste, and cleaner alternatives are needed

When we talk about clean air, the conversation usually turns to traffic: exhaust fumes, congestion, school runs and the air people breathe on busy streets. That focus is understandable because road transport remains one of the most visible sources of poor air quality in everyday life. But Clean Air Day should also draw attention to a less visible question: why are useful materials still being burned as waste? Clean air is about more than traffic Around the world, huge quantities of leftover straw are still treated as waste to be cleared quickly, with rice straw one of the clearest examples. More than 700 million tonnes of rice straw are produced globally every year, and around 80% is burned. That contributes directly to air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, while also destroying material that could have value. At Aston University’s Energy and Bioproducts Research Institute, researchers are exploring alternatives to open burning of crop residues, including whether materials often treated as waste could instead become useful sources of energy, fuels or bioproducts. This matters because the clean air debate needs to look beyond transport. How we manage waste, land and energy also plays a part, and agricultural residues should not automatically be seen as rubbish to be burned. In many cases, they could be resources with real value. Why burning crop waste matters The World Health Organization describes air pollution as one of the greatest environmental risks to health, estimating that ambient outdoor air pollution caused 4.2 million premature deaths globally in 2019. Much of that risk comes from exposure to fine particulate matter, which is linked to cardiovascular and respiratory disease and cancers. That is particularly relevant when residues are burned in the open, as smoke and fine particles can travel beyond the field where burning takes place, affecting nearby communities and wider air quality. There is a practical issue as well as an environmental one. If burning is the fastest and cheapest way to clear land, it can easily become the default, which is why any cleaner alternative has to work for farmers and communities in practice. It is not enough to tell people to stop burning; they need practical alternatives that make sense economically and locally. Turning waste into cleaner alternatives Biochar and bioenergy are two examples of how waste crop material can be treated differently. Instead of being burned in the open, residues can be converted into useful products or sources of renewable energy. Biochar can also offer practical benefits for farmers when it is produced and applied appropriately. Studies have shown that addition of biochar to the soil can improve its structure, help retain nutrients and, in some cases, reduce the need for synthetic fertilisers, which will lower associated emissions and economic demands. The water-holding capacity of biochar can also support crops during dry periods, potentially reducing irrigation demand in drought-prone seasons. Work connected to rice straw has shown that cleaner alternatives to burning can produce measurable environmental benefits while supporting local economies. Community-scale rice straw bioenergy systems, for example, can avoid 2.7–3.5 tonnes of CO₂ equivalent emissions per hectare each year, while creating fuel savings and reducing post-harvest losses for rice farming communities. Research and interviews have shown that farmers and local stakeholders are willing to participate in these transitions when alternatives are designed around their needs and priorities. During community engagement activities, participants consistently highlighted cleaner air as an important benefit, not only for environmental reasons but also because of concerns about the health impacts of smoke and the financial burden of illness. For many households, avoiding respiratory problems and expensive hospital bills was seen as just as important as generating additional income from agricultural residues. That matters because cleaner air is linked to more than one policy area. Transport is important, but so are farming, energy and waste. Research can help identify what works, where the trade-offs are, and how promising ideas can move beyond the lab. It can also support industry, policymakers and local partners to develop alternatives that are practical rather than theoretical. For policymakers, the lesson is that air quality cannot be improved by focusing only on the most visible sources of pollution. Transport matters, but so do homes, industry, farming, waste and energy systems. There is no single answer. Agricultural residues vary, local conditions vary, and technologies need to be assessed carefully, but cleaner air will require better options than burning. Clean Air Day should prompt us to ask why useful materials are still being burned in the first place. If we want cleaner air, we need to reduce what we burn and get smarter about what we waste. This article was written by Dr Samuel Sogbesan and Thea Mae Baltazar from Aston University’s Energy and Bioproducts Research Institute. (Photo by Sandie Peters on Unsplash)

Major trial shows increasing bone density fails to cut fracture risk in brittle bone disease featured image

3 min

Major trial shows increasing bone density fails to cut fracture risk in brittle bone disease

An international clinical trial involving Aston University researchers has challenged long held assumptions about how brittle bone disease is treated in adults, after finding that substantially increasing bone density did not reduce the risk of fractures. The study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), examined whether a two stage treatment using the bone building drug teriparatide followed by the bone preserving drug zoledronic acid could reduce fractures in adults with osteogenesis imperfecta, often referred to as brittle bone disease, a rare genetic condition that causes bones to break easily throughout life. Researchers followed 349 adults treated at 27 specialist centres across the UK and Europe. While the treatment led to clear increases in bone density in the spine and hip, fracture rates were no lower than among patients receiving standard care, suggesting that bone quality may matter more than bone density alone in preventing fractures in people with the condition. The findings underline a key distinction between brittle bone disease and more common bone conditions such as osteoporosis, where increasing bone density is known to reduce fracture risk. In osteogenesis imperfecta, the study suggests that bones can become denser without becoming less likely to break, indicating that the underlying quality and structure of bone tissue may play a greater role in fracture risk than density alone. Dr Zaki Hassan Smith, an endocrinologist at Aston Medical School who contributed to the research, said: “This study shows that in osteogenesis imperfecta, simply increasing bone density doesn’t necessarily translate into fewer fractures. That’s important, because it tells us that the disease is more complex than what we see on a scan. The findings help shift the focus towards understanding bone quality and how bones behave in real life, which is essential if we are to develop more effective treatments that genuinely reduce harm for patients.” Osteogenesis imperfecta is a genetic condition that affects collagen, leaving bones fragile and prone to fracture throughout life. There is currently no licensed treatment specifically approved to prevent fractures in adults with the condition, and patients often experience repeated fractures, chronic pain and long term disability. The trial tested a sequential treatment strategy commonly used in osteoporosis, where a bone building drug is followed by a treatment designed to preserve gains in bone strength. Although this approach successfully increased bone density in people with osteogenesis imperfecta, it did not reduce fracture rates, suggesting that treatment strategies effective in osteoporosis may not directly translate to rare bone diseases. Researchers did observe improvements in some quality of life measures among participants receiving the treatment, including reduced pain interference and improved mobility. However, fracture prevention remained unchanged, reinforcing the need for new approaches that target the fundamental properties of bone in osteogenesis imperfecta rather than density alone. The study was led by the University of Edinburgh and funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Aston University contributed clinical and academic expertise through Aston Medical School as part of the large international collaboration, which involved specialist centres across the UK and Europe. The study was led by the University of Edinburgh, with Aston University contributing clinical and academic expertise as part of a wider international collaboration involving multiple specialist centres across the UK and Europe. The research was funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Researchers say the findings provide important guidance for future research, helping to steer efforts towards treatments that focus on bone quality, strength and resilience in everyday life. They also highlight the value of large scale clinical trials in rare diseases, where learning what does not reduce harm is an essential step towards better care. The paper, Teriparatide Plus Zoledronic Acid for Osteogenesis Imperfecta, is published in JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2026.6889

View all posts
Powered by