Research ArticleMathematical Model of MDR-TB and XDR-TB with Isolationand Lost to Follow-Up
F. B. Agusto, J. Cook, P. D. Shelton, and M. G. Wickers
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, TN 37044, USA
Correspondence should be addressed to F. B. Agusto; [email protected]
Received 24 February 2015; Accepted 31 May 2015
Academic Editor: Juan-Carlos CorteÌs
Copyright © 2015 F. B. Agusto et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
We present a deterministic model with isolation and lost to follow-up for the transmission dynamics of three strains ofMycobacterium tuberculosis (TB), namely, the drug sensitive, multi-drug-resistant (MDR), and extensively-drug-resistant (XDR)TB strains. The model is analyzed to gain insights into the qualitative features of its associated equilibria. Some of the theoreticaland epidemiological findings indicate that the model has locally asymptotically stable (LAS) disease-free equilibrium when theassociated reproduction number is less than unity. Furthermore, the model undergoes in the presence of disease reinfection thephenomenon of backward bifurcation, where the stable disease-free equilibrium of the model coexists with a stable endemicequilibrium when the associated reproduction number is less than unity. Further analysis of the model indicates that the disease-free equilibrium is globally asymptotically stable (GAS) in the absence of disease reinfection. The result of the global sensitivityanalysis indicates that the dominant parameters are the disease progression rate, the recovery rate, the infectivity parameter, theisolation rate, the rate of lost to follow-up, and fraction of fast progression rates. Our results also show that increase in isolation rateleads to a decrease in the total number of individuals who are lost to follow-up.
1. Introduction
Mycobacterium tuberculosis (TB) is caused by bacteria thatare transmitted from person to person through the air by aninfected personâs coughing, sneezing, speaking, or singing [1].TB usually affects the lungs, but it can also affect other parts ofthe body, such as the brain, the kidneys, or the spine [1]. TheTB bacteria can stay in the air for several hours, depending onthe environment. In 2013, 9 million people were ill with TB,and 1.5millionmortalities occurred from the disease [2]; over95% of deaths occurred in low- andmiddle-income countries[2]. About one-third of the worldâs population has latent TB[2]. TB is also among the top three causes of death in womenaged 15 to 44 [2]. Tuberculosis is second only to HIV/AIDSas the greatest killer worldwide due to a single infectiousagent [2]. Those who have a compromised immune system,like those who are living with HIV, malnutrition, or diabetes,or people who use tobacco products, have a much higherrisk of falling ill. Individuals who develop TB are providedwith a six-month course of four antimicrobial drugs alongwith supervision and support by a health worker. Improper
treatment compliance or use of poor quality medicines canall lead to the development of drug-resistant tuberculosis [2].
Multi-drug-resistant (MDR) TB is a form of TB causedby bacteria that do not respond to, at least, isoniazid andrifampicin, which are the two most powerful, standard anti-tuberculosis drugs.MDR-TB is treatable and curable by usingsecond-line drugs [3]. However, these treatment options arelimited and recommendedmedicines are not always available[3]. In some cases, more severe drug resistance can develop.Extensively-drug-resistant (XDR)TB is a formofmulti-drug-resistant TB that responds to even fewer available medicines,including the second-line drugs [3]. In 2013, there were about480,000 cases of MDR-TB present in the world [4]; it wasestimated that about 9%-10% of these cases were XDR-TB[2, 4â6].
The increase in drug-resistant TB strains has called for anincreased urgency for isolating individuals infected with suchstrains of TB [7]. High priority is being placed on identifyingand curing these individuals. With proper identification andtreatment, about 40% of XDR-TB cases could potentially becured [6, 8]. However, only 10% of MDR-TB cases are ever
Hindawi Publishing CorporationAbstract and Applied AnalysisVolume 2015, Article ID 828461, 21 pageshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/828461
2 Abstract and Applied Analysis
identified, leaving the potential development of XDR-TB tobecome more prevalent worldwide [2]. The need for a mod-ern and effective approach to curtail the rise of drug-resistantTB strains is being sought after, one of which is constructedisolation, whether it is an at-home isolation or isolation ata medical facility [6]. An event that portrays the need forcarefully constructed isolation was the identification of anindividual infected with MDR-TB in Atlanta InternationalAirport in 2007 [9]. The individual had flown to Atlantaafter visiting Paris, Greece, Italy, CzechRepublic, andCanada.The individual unknowingly was infected withMDR-TB and,after twelve days of travel, the individual was involuntarilyisolated by the CDC in Atlanta under the Public HealthService Act [9]. The CDC held the individual in isolationfor one week and then moved him to a hospital in Denver,Colorado [9]. In this case, there are no reported infectionsresulting from the travel of the individual, perhaps due tothe slightly lower infection rate of MDR-TB as comparedto drug sensitive TB strains [9]. It should be noted herethat the isolation of this individual, albeit brief, potentiallyhelped prevent a rise in drug-resistant TB in the UnitedStates, which is currently at admittedly low levels [10]. Anoccurrence such as this one clearly demonstrates the need forcarefully executed isolation procedures for individuals withdrug-resistant TB strains.
Several reports have shown the effectiveness of isola-tion in reducing the number of people with TB [6, 7, 26,27]. Weis et al. [27] showed the effectiveness of isolation,reporting lower occurrences of primary and acquired drugresistance among individuals with TB. Historically, to treatthe infection, individuals were isolated in a sanatoriumwherethey would receive proper nutrition and a constant supplyof fresh air [28]. However, while this method is successfulin certain situations, this treatment methodology is difficultto implement without proper infrastructure in place [29].Locations without proper facilities such as South Africa havepoor treatment and success rates [29]; effective isolation isessential in areas such as these which have high treatmentfailure rates. Sutton et al. [26] studied three hospitals inCalifornia; they found that implementing the CDC isolationguidelines for hospitals was feasible; however, since not everyhospital could afford the necessary equipment, the isolationwas not the same for each hospital. Even though the resultsvaried, it is noticeably more efficient to isolate patients whoare infected with TB.
According to the National Committee of Fight againstTuberculosis of Cameroon [30], about 10% of infectious indi-viduals who start the recommended WHO DOTS treatmenttherapy in the hospital do not return to the hospital for therest of sputumexaminations and check-up and are thus lost tofollow-up.This can be attributed to the long duration of treat-ment regimen, negligence, or lack of information about TB[30], a brief relief from the long term treatment [22], poverty,and so forth. As such, health-care personnel do not knowtheir epidemiological status, that is, if they died, recovered,or are still infectious and this lack of epidemiological status ofthese individuals can affect the spread of TB in a population[30]. A number of mathematical models for tuberculosisdeveloped account for this population by the inclusion of
either the lost sight class [23, 30â32] or lost to follow-up class[22].
The aim of this study is to develop a new deterministictransmission model for TB to gain qualitative insight intothe effects of isolation in the presence of individuals who arelost to follow-up on TB transmission dynamics. A notablefeature of themodel is the incorporation of isolated and lost tofollow-up classes for the three TB strains. The paper is orga-nized as follows.Themodel formulation and analysis is givenin Section 2. Sensitivity analysis of the model is considered inSection 3. Analysis of the reproduction number is carried outin Section 4.The effect of isolation is numerically investigatedin Section 5. The key theoretical and epidemiological resultsfrom this study are summarized in Section 6.
2. Model Formulation
Themodel is formulated as follows: the population is dividedinto susceptible (ð), latently infected (ðž
ð), symptomatically
infectious with drug sensitive strain (ð), MDR strain (ð),XDR strain (ð), symptomatically infectious individuals whoare lost to follow-up (ð¿
ð), isolated (ðœ), and recovered (ð ),
where ð = ð,ð,ð. Thus, the total population is ð(ð¡) =ð(ð¡) + ðž
ð(ð¡) + ð(ð¡) + ðž
ð(ð¡) + ð(ð¡) + ðž
ð(ð¡) + ð(ð¡) +
ð¿ð(ð¡) + ð¿
ð(ð¡) + ð¿
ð(ð¡) + ðœ(ð¡) + ð (ð¡).
As the disease evolves individuals move from one class tothe other with respect to their disease status. The populationof susceptible (ð) is generated by new recruits (either via birthor immigration) who enter the population at a rate ð. Theparameter ð denotes the recruitment rate. It is assumed thatthere is no vertical transmission or immigration of infectious;thus, these new inflow does not enter the infectious classes.All individuals, whatever their status, are subject to naturaldeath, which occurs at a rate ð. The susceptible population isreduced by infection following effective contact with infectedindividuals with drug sensitive, MDR-, and XDR-TB strainsat the rates ð
ð, ðð, and ð
ð, where
ðð=ðœð(ð + ð
ðð¿ð)
ð,
ðð=ðœð(ð + ð
ðð¿ð)
ð,
ðð=ðœð(ð + ð
ðð¿ð)
ð.
(1)
The parameters ðœð, ðœð, and ðœ
ðare the effective transmission
probability per contact; we assume that ðœð
< ðœð
< ðœð
[9] and the parameters ðð
> 1, ðð
> 1, and ðð
> 1are the modification parameter that indicates the increasedinfectivity of individuals who are lost to follow-up.
A fraction ðð1 of the newly infected individuals with drug
sensitive strainmove into the latently infected class (ðžð), with
ðð2 fractionmoving into the symptomatic-infectious class (ð)and the other fraction [1 â (ð
ð1 + ðð2)] moving into the lostto follow-up class (ð¿
ð) with ð
ð1 + ðð2 < 1. The latentlyinfected individuals become actively infectious as a result ofendogenous reactivation of the latent bacilli at the rate ð
ð.
Similarly a fraction ðð1 of the newly infected individuals
with MDR stain move into the latently infected class with
Abstract and Applied Analysis 3
MDR (ðžð), with ð
ð2 fractions moving into the symptomat-ically infectious class (ð) and the other fraction [1 â (ð
ð1 +ðð2)] moving into the symptomatically infectious lost tofollow-up class (ð¿
ð) with ð
ð1 + ðð2 < 1.The latently infectedindividuals with MDR strain become actively infectious as aresult of endogenous reactivation of the latent bacilli at therate ð
ð.
Lastly, a fraction ðð1 of the newly infected individualswith
XDR stain moves into the latently infected class with XDR(ðžð), with ð
ð2 fractions moving into the symptomaticallyinfectious class (ð) and the other fraction [1 â (ð
ð1 + ðð2)]moving into the symptomatically infectious lost to follow-upclass (ð¿
ð) with ð
ð1 + ðð2 < 1.The latently infected individualswith XDR strain become actively infectious as a result ofendogenous reactivation at the rate ð
ð.
Members of the symptomatically infectious class withthe drug sensitive strain (ð) are lost to follow-up at therate ð
ðand move to the class of lost to follow-up with
drug sensitive strain (ð¿ð). They are isolated into the isolated
class (ðœ) at the rate ðŒð. They undergo the WHO recom-
mended DOTS treatment (Directly Observed Treatment,Short Course (DOTS)); however due to treatment failure(from treatment noncompliance) they move into the latentlyinfected class at the rate ð
ð1ðŸð or the latently infected classwith MDR at the rate ð
ð2ðŸð. The remaining fraction moveinto the recovered class (ð ) following effective treatment atthe rate (1 â ð
ð1 â ðð2)ðŸð (where ðð1 + ðð2 < 1). Or they candie from the infection at the rate ð¿
ð.
Similarlymembers of the symptomatically infectiouswithMDR strain (ð) are lost to follow-up at the rate ð
ðand
move to the class of lost to follow-up with MDR strain (ð¿ð).
They are isolated at the rate ðŒð. And a fraction of them
move into the population of the latently infected with XDRstrain as a result of treatment failure of the symptomaticallyinfectious individuals with MDR strain at the rate ð
ð1ðŸð.The remaining fraction move into the recovered class at therate (1 â ð
ð1)ðŸð (where ðð1 < 1). Or they can die from theinfection at the rate ð¿
ð.
Lastly, members of the symptomatically infectious withXDR strain (ð) are lost to follow-up at the rate ð
ðand move
to the class of lost to follow-up with XDR strain (ð¿ð). Or they
move into recovered class at the rate ðŸð. Or they can die from
the infection at the rate ð¿ð. We assume that ðŸ
ð< ðŸð< ðŸð.
The individuals who are lost to follow-up (ð¿ð) with drug
sensitive strain return at the rateððandmove into the class of
individuals with drug sensitive strain. Or they die at the rateð¿ð¿ð. Similarly, the individuals who are lost to follow-up (ð¿
ð)
withMDR strain return at the rateððandmove into the class
of individuals with MDR strain. Or they die at the rate ð¿ð¿ð
.Lastly, the individuals who are lost to follow-up (ð¿
ð) with
XDR strain return at the rate ððand move into the class of
individuals with XDR strain. Or they die at the rate ð¿ð¿ð.
Recovered individuals (ð ) are reinfected with drug sen-sitive strain at the rate ðð
ð, with ð
ð1ððð fraction movinginto the latently infected class with drug sensitive strain,ðð2ððð fraction moving into the symptomatically infectiousclass with drug sensitive strain, and the other [1 â (ð
ð1 +ðð2)]ððð moving into the symptomatically infectious lostto follow-up class with drug sensitive strain. Also, these
individuals experience reinfection with MDR and XDRstrains and fractions of these move into the latently infectedand symptomatically infectious classes, respectively.
It follows, from the above descriptions and assump-tions, that the model for the transmission dynamics of thetuberculosis with isolation and lost to follow-up is given bythe following deterministic system of nonlinear differentialequations (the variables and parameters of the model aredescribed in Table 1; a schematic diagram of the model isdepicted in Figure 1):
ðð
ðð¡= ðâ[
ðœð(ð + ð
ðð¿ð)
ð+ðœð(ð + ð
ðð¿ð)
ð
+ðœð(ð + ð
ðð¿ð)
ð] ðâðð,
ððžð
ðð¡=ðð1ðœð (ð + ððð¿ð) (ð + ðð )
ð+ðð1ðŸððâ (ðð
+ð) ðžð,
ðð
ðð¡=ðð2ðœð (ð + ððð¿ð) (ð + ðð )
ð+ðððžð+ððð¿ð
â (ðð+ðŒð+ ðŸð+ð+ ð¿
ð) ð,
ððžð
ðð¡=ðð1ðœð (ð + ððð¿ð) (ð + ðð )
ð+ðð2ðŸððâ (ðð
+ð) ðžð,
ðð
ðð¡=ðð2ðœð (ð + ððð¿ð) (ð + ðð )
ð+ðððžð
+ððð¿ðâ (ðð+ðŒð+ ðŸð+ð+ ð¿
ð)ð,
ððžð
ðð¡=ðð1ðœð (ð + ððð¿ð) (ð + ðð )
ð+ðð1ðŸððâ(ðð
+ð) ðžð,
ðð
ðð¡=ðð2ðœð (ð + ððð¿ð) (ð + ðð )
ð+ðððžð+ððð¿ð
â (ðð+ðŒð+ ðŸð+ð+ ð¿
ð)ð,
ðð¿ð
ðð¡=(1 â ðð1 â ðð2) ðœð (ð + ððð¿ð) (ð + ðð )
ð+ððð
â (ðð+ð+ ð¿
ð¿ð) ð¿ð,
ðð¿ð
ðð¡=(1 â ðð1 â ðð2) ðœð (ð + ððð¿ð) (ð + ðð )
ð
+ðððâ(ð
ð+ð+ ð¿
ð¿ð) ð¿ð,
ðð¿ð
ðð¡=(1 â ðð1 â ðð2) ðœð (ð + ððð¿ð) (ð + ðð )
ð+ððð
â (ðð+ð+ ð¿
ð¿ð) ð¿ð,
ððœ
ðð¡= ðŒðð+ðŒðð+ðŒ
ððâ (ðŸ
ðœ+ð+ ð¿
ðœ) ðœ,
ðð
ðð¡= (1âð
ð1 âðð2) ðŸðð+ (1âðð1) ðŸðð+ðŸðð
+ðŸðœðœ â ðð â ð [
ðœð(ð + ð
ðð¿ð)
ð+ðœð(ð + ð
ðð¿ð)
ð
+ðœð(ð + ð
ðð¿ð)
ð]ð .
(2)
4 Abstract and Applied Analysis
Table 1: Variables and parameters description of model (2).
Variable Descriptionð(ð¡) Susceptible individualsðžð(ð¡), ðžð(ð¡), ðžð(ð¡) Latently infected individuals with drug sensitive, MDR, and XDR strains
ð(ð¡),ð(ð¡), ð(ð¡) Symptomatically infectious individuals with drug sensitive, MDR, and XDR strainsð¿ð(ð¡), ð¿ð(ð¡), ð¿ð(ð¡) Symptomatically infectious individuals who are lost to sight with drug sensitive, MDR, and XDR strains
ðœ(ð¡) Isolated individualsð (ð¡) Recovered individualsParameter Descriptionð Recruitment rateð Natural death rateð TB reinfection rateðœð, ðœð, ðœð
Transmission probabilityðð, ðð, ðð
Infectivity modification parameterðð1, ðð2, ðð1, ðð2, ðð1, ðð2 Fraction of fast disease progressionðð1, ðð2, ðð1 Fraction that failed treatmentðð, ðð, ðð
Disease progression rateðŸð, ðŸð, ðŸð, ðŸðœ
Recovery rateðŒð, ðŒð, ðŒð
Isolation rateð¿ð, ð¿ð, ð¿ð, ð¿ðœ
Disease-induced death rateðð, ðð, ðð
Lost to follow-up rateðð, ðð, ðð
Return rate from lost to follow-upð¿ð¿ð, ð¿ð¿ð, ð¿ð¿ð
Disease-induced death rate in individuals who are lost to follow-up
lT1ðT
lM1ðT lM2ðT
lX1ðX lX2ðX
ðlM1ðM ðlM2ðM
pT1ðŸT
pT2ðŸT
ðð
ðð ð
ð
ð ð
ð
ðð
ð
ET
EM
EX
S
T
M
X
LT
LM
LX
J R
ðTðM
ðX
ð
ðX
ðT
ðM
ð¿M
ð¿X
ð¿J
ðŸJ
ðT
ðM
ðX
ð¿LM
lT2ðT(1 â lT1 â lT2)ðT ð(1 â lT1 â lT2)ðT
(1 â pT1 â pT2)ðŸT
(1 â pM1)ðŸM
(1 â lM1 â lM2)ðT
ð(1 â lM1 â lM2)ðM
ð(1 â lX1 â lX2)ðX
(1 â lX1 â lX2)ðX
pM1ðŸM
ðlX1ðXðlX2ðX
ð¿LT
ð¿LX
ðlT2ðT
ðŒM
ðŒT
ðŒX
ðlT1ðT
ð¿T
ðX
ðT
ðM
Figure 1: Systematic flow diagram of the tuberculosis model (2).
2.1. Basic Properties
2.1.1. Positivity and Boundedness of Solutions. For TB model(2) to be epidemiologically meaningful, it can be shown(using the method in Appendix A of [33]) that all itsstate variables are nonnegative for all time. In other words,
solutions of the model system (2) with nonnegative initialdata will remain nonnegative for all time ð¡ > 0.
Lemma 1. Let the initial data ð(0) ⥠0, ðžð(0) ⥠0, ð(0) â¥
0, ðžð(0) ⥠0, ð(0) ⥠0, ðž
ð(0) ⥠0, ð(0) ⥠0, ð¿
ð(0) â¥
0, ð¿ð(0) ⥠0, ð¿
ð(0) ⥠0, ðœ(0) ⥠0, ð (0) ⥠0.
Abstract and Applied Analysis 5
Then the solutions (ð, ðžð, ð, ðžð,ð, ðž
ð, ð, ð¿ð, ð¿ð, ð¿ð, ðœ, ð )
of the tuberculosis model (2) are nonnegative for all ð¡ > 0.Furthermore,
lim supð¡ââ
ð(ð¡) â€ð
ð, (3)
with
ð = ð+ðžð+ð+ðž
ð+ð+ðž
ð+ð+ð¿
ð+ð¿ð
+ð¿ð+ ðœ +ð .
(4)
2.1.2. Invariant Regions. Since model (2) monitors humanpopulations, all variables and parameters of the model arenonnegative. Model (2) will be analyzed in a biologicallyfeasible region as follows. Consider the feasible region
Ί â R12+
(5)
with
Ί = {(ð, ðžð, ð, ðžð,ð, ðž
ð, ð, ð¿ð, ð¿ð, ð¿ð, ðœ, ð )
âR12+: ð (ð¡) â€
ð
ð} .
(6)
The following steps are followed to establish the positiveinvariance ofΊ (i.e., solutions inΊ remain inΊ for all ð¡ > 0).The rate of change of the population is obtained by adding theequations of model (2) and this gives
ðð (ð¡)
ðð¡= ðâðð (ð¡) â ð¿ðð (ð¡) â ð¿ðð(ð¡) â ð¿ðð(ð¡)
â ð¿ð¿ðð¿ð (ð¡) â ð¿ð¿ðð¿ð (ð¡) â ð¿ð¿ðð¿ð (ð¡) .
(7)
And it follows that
ðð (ð¡)
ðð¡â€ ðâðð (ð¡) . (8)
A standard comparison theorem [34] can then be used toshow that
ð(ð¡) †ð (0) ðâðð¡ + ðð(1â ðâðð¡) . (9)
In particular, ð(ð¡) †ð/ð, if ð(0) †ð/ð. Thus, region Ίis positively invariant. Hence, it is sufficient to consider thedynamics of the flow generated by (2) in Ί. In this region,the model can be considered as being epidemiologicallyand mathematically well-posed [35]. Thus, every solution ofmodel (2) with initial conditions in Ί remains in Ί for allð¡ > 0. Therefore, the ð-limit sets of system (2) are containedin Ί. This result is summarized below.
Lemma 2. The region Ί â R12+à is positively invariant for
model (2) with nonnegative initial conditions in R12+.
2.2. Stability of the Disease-Free Equilibrium (DFE). Tubercu-losis model (2) has a DFE, obtained by setting the right-handsides of the equations in the model to zero, given by
E0
= (ðâ, ðžâ
ð, ðâ, ðžâ
ð,ðâ, ðžâ
ð, ðâ, ð¿â
ð, ð¿â
ð, ð¿â
ð, ðœâ, ð â)
= (ð
ð, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0) .
(10)
The linear stability of E0 can be established using thenext generation operator method on system (2). Using thenotations in [36], the matrices ð¹ andð, for the new infectionterms and the remaining transfer terms, are, respectively,given by
ð¹ = [ð¹1 | ð¹2] , (11)
where
ð¹1 =
((((((((((((((((
(
0 ðð1ðœð 0 0 0
0 ðð2ðœð 0 0 0
0 0 0 ðð1ðœð 0
0 0 0 ðð2ðœð 0
0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 (1 â ð
ð1 â ðð2) ðœð 0 0 00 0 0 (1 â ð
ð1 â ðð2) ðœð 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0
))))))))))))))))
)
,
6 Abstract and Applied Analysis
ð¹2 =
((((((((((((((((
(
0 ðð1ðœððð 0 0 0
0 ðð2ðœððð 0 0 0
0 0 ðð1ðœððð 0 0
0 0 ðð2ðœððð 0 0
ðð1ðœð 0 0 ðð1ðœððð 0ðð2ðœð 0 0 ðð2ðœððð 00 (1 â ð
ð1 â ðð2) ðœððð 0 0 00 0 (1 â ð
ð1 â ðð2) ðœððð 0 0(1 â ðð1 â ðð2) ðœð 0 0 (1 â ðð1 â ðð2) ðœððð 0
0 0 0 0 0
))))))))))))))))
)
,
ð =
((((((((((((((((
(
ð1 âðð1ðŸð 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0âðð
ð2 0 0 0 0 âðð 0 0 00 âð
ð2ðŸð ð3 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 âð
ðð4 0 0 0 âðð 0 0
0 0 0 âðð1ðŸð ð5 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 âðð
ð6 0 0 âðð 00 âð
ð0 0 0 0 ð7 0 0 0
0 0 0 âðð
0 0 0 ð8 0 00 0 0 0 0 âð
ð0 0 ð9 0
0 âðŒð
0 âðŒð
0 âðŒð
0 0 0 ð10
))))))))))))))))
)
,
(12)
whereð1 = ðð+ð, ð2 = ðð+ðŸð+ðŒð+ðð+ð, ð3 = ðð+ð, ð4 =ðð+ ðŸð+ ðŒð+ ðð+ ð, ð5 = ðð + ð, ð6 = ðð + ðŸð +
ðŒð+ ðð+ ð, ð7 = ðð + ð + ð¿ð¿ð, ð8 = ðð + ð + ð¿ð¿ð, ð9 =
ðð+ ð + ð¿
ð¿ð, ð10 = ðŸðœ + ð + ð¿ðœ.
It follows that the basic reproduction number of tubercu-losis model (2), denoted byR0, is given by
R0 = ð (ð¹ðâ1) = max (R
ð,Rð,Rð) , (13)
where
Rð=ðœð{ðð(ð7 + ðððð) ðð1 + (ð7 + ðððð) ð1ðð2 + [(ð2ðð + ðð) ð1 â ðððððð1ðŸð] (1 â ðð1 â ðð2)}
[ð1 (ð7ð2 â ðððð) â ðððððð1ðŸð],
Rð=ðœð[ðð(ð8 + ðððð) ðð1 + (ð8 + ðððð) ð3ðð2 + (ð4ðð + ðð) ð3 (1 â ðð1 â ðð2)]
ð3 (ð8ð4 â ðððð),
Rð=ðœð[ðð(ð9 + ðððð) ðð1 + (ð9 + ðððð) ð5ðð2 + (ð6ðð + ðð) ð5 (1 â ðð1 â ðð2)]
ð5 (ð9ð6 â ðððð).
(14)
Quantity Rðrepresents the reproduction number of TB
drug sensitive-only population. Similarly, quantity Rð
isthe reproduction number for MDR-only population and thequantity R
ðrepresents the reproduction number for XDR-
only TB population.Further, using Theorem 2 in [36], the following result is
established.
Lemma 3. TheDFE of the tuberculosis model (2), given byE0,is locally asymptotically stable (LAS) ifR0 < 1, and unstable ifR0 > 1.
The threshold quantity (R0, i.e., the basic reproductionnumber) measures the average number of new infectionsgenerated by a single infected individual in a completely
Abstract and Applied Analysis 7
ðXðMðTlX2lX1lM2lM1lT2lT1
ð¿Jð¿Xð¿Mð¿TðXðMðTðXðMðTð
pM1pT2pT1ðŒTðŒXðŒMðXðMðTðœXðœMðœTðŸJðŸXðŸMðŸTð
0 0.5 1â0.5
ð
ð¿LXð¿LMð¿LT
(a)
ðXðMðTlX2lX1lM2lM1lT2lT1
ð¿Jð¿Xð¿Mð¿TðXðMðTðXðMðTð
pM1pT2pT1ðŒTðŒXðŒMðXðMðTðœXðœMðœTðŸJðŸXðŸMðŸTð
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1â0.8 â0.6 â0.4 â0.2
ð
ð¿LXð¿LMð¿LT
(b)ðXðMðTlX2lX1lM2lM1lT2lT1
ð¿Jð¿Xð¿Mð¿TðXðMðTðXðMðTð
pM1pT2pT1ðŒTðŒXðŒMðXðMðTðœXðœMðœTðŸJðŸXðŸMðŸTð
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1â0.8 â0.6 â0.4 â0.2
ð
ð¿LXð¿LMð¿LT
(c)
Figure 2: PRCC values for model (2), using as the response function (a) the basic reproduction number (Rð), (b) the basic reproduction
number (Rð), and (c) the basic reproduction number (R
ð). Parameter values (baseline) and ranges used are as given in Table 2.
susceptible population [35â38]. Thus, Lemma 3 implies thattuberculosis can be eliminated from the population (whenR0 < 1) if the initial sizes of the subpopulations of model(2) are in the basin of attraction of the DFE, E0.
3. Sensitivity Analysis
A global sensitivity analysis [39â42] is carried out, on theparameters of model (2), to determine which of the param-eters have the most significant impact on the outcome ofthe numerical simulations of the model. Figure 2(a) depictsthe partial rank correlation coefficient (PRCC) values foreach parameter of the models, using the ranges and baselinevalues tabulated in Table 2 (with the basic reproductionnumbers, R
ð, as the response function), from which it
follows that the parameters that have the most influence ondrug sensitive TB transmission dynamics are the fraction offast progression rate (ð
ð2) into the drug sensitive TB class,the infectivity modification parameter (ð
ð), the recovery rate
(ðŸð) from drug sensitive TB, disease progression rate (ð
ð),
rate of lost to follow-up (ðð) of those with drug sensitive
TB, fraction of latently infected with drug sensitive TB thatfailed treatment (ð
ð1), the fraction of fast progression rate(ðð1) into the latently infected with drug sensitive TB class,
and the isolation rate (ðŒð) from drug sensitive TB class.
The identification of these key parameters is vital to theformulation of effective control strategies for combating thespread of the disease, as this study identifies the most impor-tant parameters that drive the transmissionmechanism of thedisease. In other words, the results of this sensitivity analysissuggest that, to effectively control the spread of drug sensitiveTB in the community, the effective strategy will be to reducethe disease progression rate (reduceð
ð), increase the recovery
rate (increase ðŸð) from drug sensitive TB, reduce the disease
modification parameter (reduce ðð), increase the isolation
rate (increase ðŒð) from drug sensitive TB class, and reduce
the fraction of fast progression rates (reduce ðð1 and ðð2) into
the drug sensitive TB class and lost to follow-up class andreduce the rate of lost to follow-up (reduce ð
ð) of those with
drug sensitive TB.The result of this analysis suggests that thefraction of latently infected with drug sensitive TB that failedtreatment (ð
ð1) be increased, since this has a negative impactof the basic reproduction number, R
ð. This of course is
counter intuitive; however increasing this rate lowers the rateof development of drug-resistant TB due to treatment failure.
The sensitivity analysis was also carried out using model(2) with the basic reproduction number, R
ð, for drug-
resistant TB, as the response function (see Figure 2(b)). Thedominant parameters in this case are ðŒ
ð, ðð, ðð, ðŸð, ðð,
ðð, ð, ðð1, and ðð2. Similarly, when using as response func-
tion the basic reproduction number, Rð, for extended drug
8 Abstract and Applied Analysis
resistance TB (see Figure 2(c)), the dominant parameters inthis case are ðŒ
ð, ðð, ðð, ðŸð, ðð, ðð, ð, ðð1, and ðð2.
The results from these analyses using as response func-tions the basic reproduction numbers,R
ðandR
ð, suggest
that the natural death rate (ð) be increased, since it has anegative impact on the basic reproduction numbers,R
ðand
Rð. However increasing this rate is not epidemiologically
relevant, as it implies reducing the population size thatwe wish to preserve by other means aside from death bytuberculosis and should therefore be ignored in any controlmeasures.
4. Analysis of the Reproduction Number
Following the result obtained in Section 3, we investigate inthis section whether or not treatment-only, isolation-onlyof individuals with tuberculosis or a combination of bothcan lead to tuberculosis elimination in the population. Theanalysis will be carried out using the reproduction numberfor drug sensitive TB (R
ð) since R0 is the maximum of the
reproduction number of drug sensitive TB (Rð), MDR-TB
(Rð), and XDR-TB (R
ð); similar result can be obtained for
the MDR- and XDR-TB.In the absence of isolation (ðŒ
ð= 0), the reproduction
number (Rð) reduces to
RððŒ
=ðœð[(ððð7 + ðððððð) ðð1 + (ððð1ðð + ð1ð7) ðð2 + (ð1ðð + ððð1 (ðð + ðŸð + ð + ð¿ð) â ðððððð¡1ðŸð) (1 â ðð1 â ðð2)]
ð1 (ðð + ðŸð + ð + ð¿ð) ð7 â ð1ðððð â ðððð1ðŸðð7.
(15)
The reproduction number (Rð) can be written as
Rð= ðŽðŒRððŒ
, (16)
where
ðŽðŒ
=(ð1ð7 (ðð + ðŸð + ð + ð¿ð) â ð1ðððð â ðððð1ðŸðð7) [(ððð7 + ðððððð) ðð1 + (ððð1ðð + ð1ð7) ðð2 + (ð1ðð + ððð1ð2 â ðððððð1ðŸð) (1 â ðð1 â ðð2)]{(ð1ð2ð7 â ð1ðððð â ðððð1ðŸðð7) [ðð (ð7 + ðððð) ðð1 + (ðððð + ð7) ð1ðð2 + (ððð1 (ðð + ðŸð + ð + ð¿ð) + ð1ðð â ðððððð1ðŸð) (1 â ðð1 â ðð2)]}
.
(17)
The difference between Rðand R
ððŒ
is in the isolation rate(ðŒð); as such the factor ðŽ
ðŒcompares a population with
and without isolation; however, this is in the presence oftreatment and individuals who are lost to follow-up andindividuals returning from lost to follow-up. If R
ððŒ
< 1,then drug sensitive TB cannot develop into an epidemicin the community. However, if R
ððŒ
> 1, it is imperative
to investigate the effect of isolation on the transmission ofdrug sensitive TB among the populace and determine thenecessary condition for slowing down its development in thecommunity. Following [43] we have
ÎðŒ= RððŒ
âRð= (1âðŽ
ðŒ)RððŒ
, (18)
where
ÎðŒ=[ðœðð1 (ð7 + ðððð) (ðð â ð2 + ðŸð + ð + ð¿ð) (ððð7ðð1 + ð1ð7ðð2 + ð1ðð (1 â ðð1 â ðð2))]
{(ð1ð2ð7 â ð1ðððð â ðððð1ðŸðð7) [ð1ð7 (ðð + ðŸð + ð + ð¿ð) â ð1ðððð â ðððð1ðŸðð7]}. (19)
To slow down the spread of drug sensitive tuberculosis inthe population via effective isolation, proper treatment, andidentification of individuals who return from lost to follow-up and in the presence of individuals who are lost to follow-up, we expect that Î
ðŒ> 0, and this is satisfied if ðŽ
ðŒ< 1
in (18). Now, setting Rð= 1 and solving for ðŽ
ðŒgives the
threshold effectiveness of isolation and taking into account
treatment and identification of individuals who return fromlost to follow-up and who are also lost to follow-up:
ðŽâ
ðŒ=
1RððŒ
. (20)
Hence, drug sensitive tuberculosis can be eradicated inthe community in the presence of isolation taking into
Abstract and Applied Analysis 9
consideration proper treatment and identification of individ-uals who return from lost to follow-up and are lost to follow-up if ðŽ
ðŒ< ðŽâ
ðŒis attained. Note that ðŽâ
ðŒis a decreasing
function ofRððŒ
, thus indicating that higher values forðŽâðŒwill
result in smaller values forRððŒ
, a desired outcome. But a large
value for RððŒ
results in a small value for ðŽâðŒ, an indication
that eradication may not be attainable.The following limits of ðŽ
ðŒprovide a further insight into
possible ways of reducing the burden of drug sensitive TB inthe community:
limðŽðŒðŒðââ
=ðð2ðð [(ðð + ð + ð¿ð + ðŸð) ð1ð7 â ððððð1 â ðððð1ðŸðð7]
ð7 {ðð (ð7 + ðððð) ðð1 + (ðððð + ð7) ð1ðð2 + [ððð1 + ðð (ðð + ðŸð + ð + ð¿ð) ð1 â ðððððð1ðŸð] (1 â ðð1 â ðð2)},
(21)
limðŽðŒððââ
= 1,
limðŽðŒððââ
= 1,
limðŽðŒðŸðââ
= 1.
(22)
The limits in (21) will be less than unity. In practice, ðŒðâ â
implies high rate of isolating individuals with drug sensitiveTB, ð
ðâ â implies high rate of individuals who are lost
to follow-up, ðð
â â implies a high rate of individualswho return from lost to follow-up, and ðŸ
ðâ â implies
high treatment rate. Ideally, the results obtained from theselimits can be pursued for the reduction of the burden of
drug sensitive TB in the community, provided of course thatit is feasible and practicable economically. Therefore, with alook at factor ðŽ
ðŒ, one observes that an effective isolation will
lead to a reduction in the burden of drug sensitive TB in thepopulation.
Next, we consider the case when the treatment rate is setto zero (ðŸ
ð= 0). The reproduction number is given as
RððŸ
=ðœð[(ððð7 + ðððððð) ðð1 + (ððð1ðð + ð1ð7) ðð2 + [ð1ððððð1 (ðð + ðŒð + ð + ð¿ð)] (1 â ðð1 â ðð2)]
ð1 (ðð + ðŒð + ð + ð¿ð) ð7 â ð1ðððð. (23)
The reproduction numberRðcan be expressed as
Rð= ðŽðŸRððŸ
, (24)
where
ðŽðŸ
={[(ððð7 + ðððððð) ðð1 + (ððð1ðð + ð1ð7) ðð2 + (ð1ðð + ððð1ð2 â ðððððð1ðŸð) (1 â ðð1 â ðð2)] ð1 [(ðð + ðŒð + ð + ð¿ð) ð7 â ðððð]}
{(ð1ð2ð7 â ð1ðððð â ðððð¡1ðŸðð7) [(ððð7 + ðððððð) ðð1 + (ððð1ðð + ð1ð7) ðð2 + (ð1ðð + (ðð + ðŒð + ð + ð¿ð) ð1ðð) (1 â ðð1 â ðð2)]}.
(25)
The difference between RððŸ
and Rðis in the treatment
rate (ðŸð); thus ðŽ
ðŸcompares a population with and without
treatment in the presence of isolation of infected individualswith drug sensitive TB, individuals who are lost to follow-up and who return from of lost to follow-up. If R
ððŸ
< 1,then drug sensitive TB cannot develop into an epidemic in
the community and no control strategy will be required forits control. Take the difference betweenR
ðandR
ððŸ
; that is,
ÎðŸ= RðâRððŸ
= (1âðŽðŸ)RððŸ
, (26)
where
ÎðŸ={ðœð(ð7 + ðððð) [ð1 (ðð + ð + ð¿ð + ðŒð â ð2) + ðŸððð1ðð] [ð1ð7ðð2 + ððð7ðð1 + ð1ðð (1 â ðð1 â ðð2)]}
{ð1 (ð1ð2ð7 â ð1ðððð â ðððð1ðŸðð7) [ð7 (ðð + ðŒð + ð + ð¿ð) â ðððð]}. (27)
10 Abstract and Applied Analysis
To slow down the spread of drug sensitive tuberculosis inthe population using proper treatment, effective isolationand identification of individuals who return from lost tofollow-up and in the presence of those who are of lost to
follow-up, we expect that ÎðŸ> 0, and this is satisfied if
ðŽðŸ< 1 in (18).Take the following limits of ðŽ
ðŸ:
limðŽðŸðŸðââ
=[(ðð+ ðŒð+ ð + ð¿
ð) ð7 â ðððð] ððð1 (1 â ðð1 â ðð2)
ð7 {ðð (ð7 + ðððð) ðð1 + (ðððð + ð7) ð1ðð2 + [ððð1 + ðð (ðð + ðŸð + ð + ð¿ð) ð1 â ðððððð1ðŸð] (1 â ðð1 â ðð2)},
limðŽðŸððââ
= 1,
limðŽðŸððââ
= 1,
limðŽðŸðŒðââ
= 1.
(28)
From the limit ofðŽðŸ, one observes that an effective treatment
will lead to a reduction in the burden of drug sensitive TB inthe population.
Comparing the quantities ðŽðŒand ðŽ
ðŸshows that ðŽ
ðŒ<
ðŽðŸ; that is, size
ðŽðŒâðŽðŸ= â {[(ð7 + ðððð) + (ð7 + ðððð) ðð2ð1 + (ððð1 + ððð1ð2 â ðððððð1ðŸð) (1â ðð1 â ðð2)] [ð1 (ðŒð â ðŸð)
+ ðððð1ðŸð] (ð7 + ðððð) [ððð7ðð1 +ð1ð7ðð2 +ð1ðð (1â ðð1 â ðð2)]} ({(ð1ð2ð7 âð1ðððð âðððð1ðŸðð7)
â [ðð(ð7ðððð) ðð1 + (ð7 + ðððð) ð1ðð2 + (ððð1 + ððð1 (ðð + ðŒð + ð + ð¿ð)) (1 â ðð1 â ðð2)]
â [ðð(ð7 + ðððð) ðð1 + (ð7 + ðððð) ð1ðð2 + (ððð1 + ððð1 (ðð + ðŸð + ð + ð¿ð) â ðððððð1ðŸð) (1 â ðð1 â ðð2)]})
â1< 0.
(29)
This implies that ðŽðŸwill provide better results in slowing
down drug sensitive tuberculosis spread, using reduction inthe prevalence, than usingðŽ
ðŒ. On the other hand ifðŽ
ðŒâðŽðŸ>
0, this means that ðŽðŒwill give better outcome in slowing
down drug sensitive tuberculosis spread compared to usingðŽðŸ.Thus, from the above discussions, to slow down the
spread of the disease and reduce the number of secondaryinfections in the population, we require control strategieswith parameter values that would make ðŽ
ðŒ< 1 or ðŽ
ðŸ<
1. Hence, the necessary condition for slowing down thedevelopment of drug sensitive TB at the population level isthat Î
ðŒ> 0 or Î
ðŸ> 0. However, Î
ðŒgives a better result
in terms of reduction in the prevalence of the disease overÎðŸprovided Î
ðŸ> ÎðŒ; otherwise if Î
ðŒ> ÎðŸ, then Î
ðŸ
gives a better result over ÎðŒ. Using parameters in Table 1, we
have that ðŽðŒ= 0.8524, ðŽ
ðŸ= 0.8802 and Î
ðŒ= 0.1061,
ÎðŸ= 0.0833; thus ðŽ
ðŒâ ðŽðŸ= â0.02789. It follows that, the
isolation-only strategy provides more effective control mea-sures in curtailing the disease transmission in the community.
Using the threshold quantity, Rð, we determine how
isolation and treatment rates could lead to tuberculosiselimination in the population. Thus
limRððŒðââ
=ðœð(1 â ðð1 â ðð2) ðð
(ðð+ ð + ð¿
ð)
> 0,
limRððŸðââ
=ðœð(1 â ðð1 â ðð2) ðð
(ðð+ ð + ð¿
ð)
> 0.
(30)
Thus a sufficient effective TB control program that isolates (ortreats) the identified cases at a high rate ðŒ
ðâ â (or ðŸ
ðâ
â) can lead to effective disease control if it results in makingthe respective right-hand side of (30) less than unity.
Differentiating partially the reproduction number of ðRð
with respect to the key parameters (ðŒðand ðŸð), this gives
ðRð
ððŒð
=âðœðð1 (ð7 + ðððð) [ðð1ððð7 + ðð2ð1ð7 + (1 â ðð1 â ðð2) ð1ðð]
[ð1ð7 (ðð + ðŒð + ðŸð + ð + ð¿ð) â ð1ðððð â ðððð1ðŸðð7]2 , (31)
ðRð
ððŸð
=âðœð(ð1 â ðððð¡1) (ð7 + ðððð) [ðð1ððð7 + ðð2ð1ð7 + (1 â ðð1 â ðð2) ð1ðð][ð1ð7 (ðð + ðŒð + ðŸð + ð1ð7ð + ð¿ð) â ð1ðððð â ðððð1ðŸðð7]
2 . (32)
Abstract and Applied Analysis 11
Table 2: Values of the parameters of the model (2).
Parameter Baselinevalues Range Reference
ð ð Ã 105 (0.0143 Ã105, 0.04 Ã 105) [11]
ð 0.0159 (0.0143, 0.04) [12]ð 0.06 (0.01, 0.5) [13]ðœð 9.75 (4.5, 15.0) [14]ðœð 1.5 (1.5, 3.5) [13, 15]ðœð 0.0000085 (0.01, 0.1) [13]ðð, ðð, ðð 0.5 (0, 1) Assumed
ðð1, ðð2, ðð1, ðð2, ðð1, ðð2 0.14 (0.02, 0.3) [12, 16, 17]ðð1 0.3 (0.1, 0.5) [14, 18]ðð2 0.03 (0.01, 0.05) [14, 18]ðð1 0.03 (0.01, 0.1) [14, 18]
ðð, ðð, ðð
0.05, 0.0018,0.013 (0.005, 0.05) [12, 19, 20]
ðŸð, ðŸðœ 1.5 (1.5, 2.5) [11, 16, 21]
ðŸð, ðŸð 0.75 (0.5, 1.0) [13]
ðŒð, ðŒð, ðŒð 0.6 (0.2, 1.0) Assumed
ðð, ðð, ðð 0.2511 (0.0022, 0.5) [22]
ðð, ðð, ðð 0.1 (0.5, 1.0) [23]
ð¿ð, ð¿ðœ 0.365 (0.22, 0.39) [20, 24, 25]
ð¿ð, ð¿ð 0.028 (0.01, 0.03) [13]
ð¿ð¿ð, ð¿ð¿ð
, ð¿ð¿ð 0.02 (0.01, 0.039) [22, 23]
Thus, it follows from (31) that ðRð/ððŒð
< 0, henceshowing further the effectiveness of the control measures.Thus, isolation (ðŒ
ð) of drug sensitive tuberculosis will have
a positive impact in reducing the drug sensitive TB burdenin the community, regardless of the values of the otherparameters. This result is stated in the following lemma.
Lemma 4. The use of isolation (ðŒð) will have a positive
impact on the reduction of the drug sensitive TB burden in acommunity regardless of the values of other parameters in thebasic reproduction number under isolation.
Similarly, from (32), we have that ðRð/ððŸð
< 0.Thus, effective treatment (ðŸ
ð) of drug sensitive tuberculosis
will have a positive impact in reducing the drug sensitivetuberculosis burden in the community, irrespective of thevalues of the other parameters. This result is summarizedbelow.
Lemma 5. The use of effective treatment (ðŸð) will have a
positive impact on the reduction of the drug sensitive TB burdenin a community irrespective of the values of other parameters inthe basic reproduction number under treatment.
A contour plot of the reproduction number Rð, as a
function of the effective treatment rate (ðŸð) and isolation
rate (ðŒð), is depicted in Figure 3(a). As expected, the plot
shows a decrease in Rðvalues with increasing values of
the treatment and isolation rates. For instance, if the useof effective treatment result in ðŸ
ð= 0.8 and ðŒ
ð= 0.8,
drug sensitive TB burden will be reduced considerably in thepopulation. Similarly in Figure 3(b) the plot shows a decreasein Rðvalues with decreasing values of the return rate from
lost to follow-up (ðð) and lost to follow-up rate (ð
ð).
A contour plot of the reproduction number Rð, as a
function of return rate from lost to follow-up (ðð) and the
effective treatment rate (ðŸð), is depicted in Figure 4(a). The
plot shows a decrease inRðvalues with increasing values of
the treatment rate. Similarly the plot in Figure 4(b) shows adecrease inR
ðvalues with increasing values of the isolation
rate (ðŒð).
4.1. Backward Bifurcation Analysis. Model (2) is now investi-gated for the possibility of the existence of the phenomenonof backward bifurcation (where a stable DFE coexists with astable endemic equilibrium when the reproduction number,R0, is less than unity) [44â53]. The epidemiological impli-cation of backward bifurcation is that the elimination (oreffective control) of the TB (and various strains) in the systemis no longer guaranteed when the reproduction number isless than unity but is dependent on the initial sizes of thesubpopulations. The possibility of backward bifurcation inmodel (2) is explored using the centre manifold theory [47],as described in [54] (Theorem 4.1).
Theorem 6. Model (2) undergoes a backward bifurcation atRð= 1whenever inequality (A.9), given inAppendix A, holds.
Theproof ofTheorem 6 is given in Appendix A (the proofcan be similarly given for the case whenR
ð= 1 orR
ð= 1).
The backward bifurcation property of model (2) is illustratedby simulating themodel using a set of parameter values givenin Table 2 (such that the bifurcation parameters, ð and ð,given in Appendix A, take the values ð = 558.61 > 0 and ð =1.59 > 0, resp.). The backward bifurcation phenomenon ofmodel (2) makes the effective control of the TB strains in thepopulation difficult, since, in this case, disease control whenR0 < 1 is dependent on the initial sizes of the subpopulationsof model (2). This phenomenon is illustrated numerically inFigures 5 and 6 for individuals with drug sensitive, MDR-,and XDR-TB, as well as individuals who are lost to follow-upwith drug sensitive, MDR-, and XDR-TB, respectively.
It is worth mentioning that when the reinfection param-eter of model (2), for the recovered individuals, is set to zero(i.e., ð = 0), the bifurcation parameter, ð, becomes negative(see Appendix A). This rules out backward bifurcation (inline with Item (iv) of Theorem 4.1 of [54]) in this case. Thus,this study shows that the reinfection of recovered individualscauses backward bifurcation in the transmission dynamicsof TB in the system. To further confirm the absence of thebackward bifurcation phenomenon in model (2) for thiscase, the global asymptotic stability of the DFE of the modelis established below for the case when no reinfection ofrecovered individuals occurs.
12 Abstract and Applied Analysis
4
4
6
6
6
6
8
8
8
10
10
1214
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1ðŸT
ðŒT
(a)
2.5
33
33
3.53.5
3.5
4
4
4.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
ðT
ðT
(b)
Figure 3: Contour plot of the reproduction number (Rð) of model (2) as: (a) a function of isolation rate (ðŒ
ð) and treatment rate (ðŸ
ð); (b) a
function of return rate from lost to follow-up (ðð) and lost to follow-up rate (ð
ð). Parameter values used are as given in Table 2.
4.5 4.5 4.55
5 5 55.5 5.5 5.56
6 6 66.5 6.5 6.57
7 7 77.5 7.5 7.58 8 8 88.5 8.5 8.590 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
ðŸT
ðT
(a)
2.6
2.8 2.82.8
33 3 3
3.2 3.23.2
3.4 3.43.4
3.6 3.63.6
3.8 3.83.8
4 40 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1ðŒT
ðT
(b)
Figure 4: Contour plot of the reproduction number (Rð) of model (2) as: (a) a function of return rate from lost to follow-up (ð
ð) and
treatment rate (ðŸð); (b) a function of return rate from lost to follow-up (ð
ð) and treatment rate (ðŒ
ð). Parameter values used are as given in
Table 2.
4.2. Global Stability of the DFE: Special Case. Consider thespecial case of model (2) where the reinfection parametersare set to zero (i.e., ð = 0). It is convenient to define thereproduction threshold RÌ0 = R0|ð=0.
Theorem 7. The DFE of model (2), with ð = 0, is GAS in Ίwhenever RÌ0 < 1.
The proof of Theorem 7 is given in Appendix B.The epidemiological significance ofTheorem 7 is that, for
the special case of model (2) with ð = 0, TB will be eliminatedfrom the community if the reproduction number (RÌ0) can bebrought to (and maintained at) a value less than unity.
5. The Effects of Isolation
Following the result obtained from the sensitivity analysis, weinvestigate the impact of the isolation parameters ðŒ
ð, ðŒð, and
ðŒð, which are one of the dominant parameters of model (2).
We start by individually varying these parameters for (say)ðŒð= 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, with the other parameters given
in Table 2 kept constant. We observed that (see Figure 7) asthe isolation rate, ðŒ
ð, for drug sensitive TB increases, the
total number of individuals (with drug sensitive, MDR, andXDR) isolatedwith each strain of TB increases, while the totalnumber of individuals who are lost to follow-up decreases.We observed similar result for the isolation rate ðŒ
ð(see
Figure 8). However, for isolation rate ðŒð, negligible change
was observed and the plots are not shown.
6. Conclusion
In this paper, we have developed and analyzed a system ofordinary differential equations for the transmission dynam-ics of drug-resistant tuberculosis with isolation. From ouranalysis, we have the following results which are summarizedbelow:
Abstract and Applied Analysis 13
Stable EEP
Unstable EEP
Unstable DFEStable DFE
R0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
T
800
700
500
300
100
600
400
200
0
(a)
Stable EEP
Unstable EEP
Unstable DFEStable DFE
R0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
M
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
(b)
Stable EEP
Unstable EEP
Unstable DFEStable DFE
R0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
X
0
5
10
15
20
25
(c)
Figure 5: Backward bifurcation plot of model (2) as a function of time. (a) Individuals with drug sensitive TB (ð). (b) Individuals with MDR(ð). (c) Individuals with XDR (ð). Parameter values used are as given in Table 2.
(i) Themodel is locally asymptotically stable (LAS)R0 <1 and unstable whenR0 > 1.
(ii) The model exhibits in the presence of disease reinfec-tion the phenomenon of backward bifurcation, wherethe stable disease-free coexists with a stable endemicequilibrium, when the associated reproduction num-ber is less than unity.
(iii) As the isolation rate for each strain of TB increases,the total number of individuals infected with theparticular strain of TB decreases.
(iv) Model (2) in the absence of disease reinfection isglobally asymptotically stable (GAS)R0 < 1.
(v) The sensitivity analysis of the model shows that thedominant parameters for the drug sensitive TB are
the disease progression rate (ðð), the recovery rate
(ðŸð) from drug sensitive TB, the infectivity parameter
(ðð), the isolation rate (ðŒ
ð) from drug sensitive TB
class, fraction of fast progression rates and (ðð1 and
ðð2) into the drug sensitive TB class and lost to follow-up class, and the rate of lost to follow-up (ð
ð). Similar
parameters and return rates from lost to follow-up(ðð
and ðð) are dominant for MDR- and XDR-
TB. The natural death rate (ð), although dominantin MDR- and XDR-TB, is however epidemiologicallyirrelevant.
(vi) Increase in isolation rate leads to increase in totalnumber of individuals isolated with each TB strainresulting in decreases in the total number of individ-uals who are lost to follow-up.
14 Abstract and Applied Analysis
Appendices
A. Proof of Theorem 6
Proof. Theproof is based on using the centremanifold theory[47], as described in [54]. It is convenient to make thefollowing simplification and change of variables.
Let ð = ð¥1, ðžð = ð¥2, ð = ð¥3, ðžð = ð¥4, ð = ð¥5, ðžð =ð¥6, ð = ð¥7, ð¿ð = ð¥8, ð¿ð = ð¥9, ð¿ð = ð¥10, ðœ = ð¥11and ð = ð¥12, so that ð = ð¥1 + ð¥2 + ð¥3 + ð¥4 + ð¥5 +ð¥6 + ð¥7 + ð¥8 + ð¥9 + ð¥10 + ð¥11 + ð¥12. Using the vectornotation x = (ð¥1, ð¥2, ð¥3, ð¥4, ð¥5, ð¥6, ð¥7, ð¥8, ð¥9, ð¥10, ð¥11, ð¥12)
ð,model (2) can be written in the form ðx/ðð¡ = m(x), wherem = (ð1, ð2, ð3, ð4, ð5, ð6, ð7, ð8, ð9, ð10, ð11, ð12)
ð, asfollows:
ðð¥1ðð¡
= ð1 = ðâ[ðœð(ð¥3 + ððð¥8) + ðœð (ð¥5 + ððð¥9) + ðœðð¥7 (ð¥7 + ððð¥10)] ð¥1
(ð¥1 + ð¥2 + ð¥3 + ð¥4 + ð¥5 + ð¥6 + ð¥7 + ð¥8 + ð¥9 + ð¥10 + ð¥11 + ð¥12)â ðð¥1,
ðð¥2ðð¡
= ð2 =(1 â ðð1 â ðð2) ðœð (ð¥3 + ððð¥8) (ð¥1 + ðð¥12)
(ð¥1 + ð¥2 + ð¥3 + ð¥4 + ð¥5 + ð¥6 + ð¥7 + ð¥8 + ð¥9 + ð¥10 + ð¥11 + ð¥12)â ð1ð¥2,
ðð¥3ðð¡
= ð3 =ðð1ðœð (ð¥3 + ððð¥8) (ð¥1 + ðð¥12)
(ð¥1 + ð¥2 + ð¥3 + ð¥4 + ð¥5 + ð¥6 + ð¥7 + ð¥8 + ð¥9 + ð¥10 + ð¥11 + ð¥12)+ ððð¥2 +ððð¥8 âð2ð¥3,
ðð¥4ðð¡
= ð4 =(1 â ðð1 â ðð2) ðœð (ð¥5 + ððð¥9) (ð¥1 + ðð¥12)
(ð¥1 + ð¥2 + ð¥3 + ð¥4 + ð¥5 + ð¥6 + ð¥7 + ð¥8 + ð¥9 + ð¥10 + ð¥11 + ð¥12)â ð3ð¥4,
ðð¥5ðð¡
= ð5 =ðð1ðœð (ð¥5 + ððð¥9) (ð¥1 + ðð¥12)
(ð¥1 + ð¥2 + ð¥3 + ð¥4 + ð¥5 + ð¥6 + ð¥7 + ð¥8 + ð¥9 + ð¥10 + ð¥11 + ð¥12)+ ððð¥4 +ððð¥3 +ððð¥9 âð4ð¥5,
ðð¥6ðð¡
= ð6 =(1 â ðð1 â ðð2) ðœð (ð¥7 + ððð¥10) (ð¥1 + ðð¥12)
(ð¥1 + ð¥2 + ð¥3 + ð¥4 + ð¥5 + ð¥6 + ð¥7 + ð¥8 + ð¥9 + ð¥10 + ð¥11 + ð¥12)â ð5ð¥6,
ðð¥7ðð¡
= ð7 =ðð1ðœð (ð¥7 + ððð¥10) (ð¥1 + ðð¥12)
(ð¥1 + ð¥2 + ð¥3 + ð¥4 + ð¥5 + ð¥6 + ð¥7 + ð¥8 + ð¥9 + ð¥10 + ð¥11 + ð¥12)+ ððð¥6 +ððð¥5 +ððð¥10 âð6ð¥7,
ðð¥8ðð¡
= ð8 =ðð2ðœð (ð¥3 + ððð¥8) (ð¥1 + ðð¥12)
(ð¥1 + ð¥2 + ð¥3 + ð¥4 + ð¥5 + ð¥6 + ð¥7 + ð¥8 + ð¥9 + ð¥10 + ð¥11 + ð¥12)+ ððð¥3 âð7ð¥8,
ðð¥9ðð¡
= ð9 =ðð2ðœð (ð¥5 + ððð¥6) (ð¥1 + ðð¥12)
(ð¥1 + ð¥2 + ð¥3 + ð¥4 + ð¥5 + ð¥6 + ð¥7 + ð¥8 + ð¥9 + ð¥10 + ð¥11 + ð¥12)+ ððð¥5 âð8ð¥9,
ðð¥10ðð¡
= ð10 =ðð2ðœð (ð¥7 + ððð¥10) (ð¥1 + ðð¥12)
(ð¥1 + ð¥2 + ð¥3 + ð¥4 + ð¥5 + ð¥6 + ð¥7 + ð¥8 + ð¥9 + ð¥10 + ð¥11 + ð¥12)+ ððð¥7 âð9ð¥10,
ðð¥11ðð¡
= ð11 = ðŒðð¥3 +ðŒðð¥5 +ðŒðð¥7 âð10ð¥11,
ðð¥12ðð¡
= ð12 = ðŸðð¥3 + ðŸðð¥5 + ðŸðð¥7 âð11ð¥12 âð [ðœð(ð¥3 + ððð¥8) + ðœð (ð¥5 + ððð¥9) + ðœð (ð¥7 + ððð¥10)] ð¥12
(ð¥1 + ð¥2 + ð¥3 + ð¥4 + ð¥5 + ð¥6 + ð¥7 + ð¥8 + ð¥9 + ð¥10 + ð¥11 + ð¥12).
(A.1)
The Jacobian of the transformed system (A.1), at the disease-free equilibriumE1, is given by
ðœ (E1) = (ðœ1 | ðœ2) , (A.2)
Abstract and Applied Analysis 15
where
ðœ1 =
((((((((((((((((((((((
(
âð 0 âðœð
0 âðœð
00 âð1 ðð1ðœð + ðð1ðŸð 0 0 00 ðð
ðð2ðœð â ð2 0 0 0
0 0 0 âð3 ðð1ðœð 00 0 ð
ð2ðŸð ðð ðð2ðœð â ð4 00 0 0 0 ð
ð1ðŸð âð5
0 0 0 0 0 ðð
0 0 (1 â ðð1 â ðð2) ðœð + ðð 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 (1 â ðð1 â ðð2) ðœð + ðð 0
0 0 0 0 0 00 0 ðŒ
ð0 ðŒ
ð0
0 0 (1 â ðð1 â ðð2) ðŸð 0 (1 â ðð1) ðŸð 0
))))))))))))))))))))))
)
,
ðœ2
=
((((((((((((((((((((((
(
âðœð
âðœððð
âðœððð
âðœððð
0 00 ð
ð1ðœððð 0 0 0 00 ð
ð2ðœððð + ðð 0 0 0 00 0 ð
ð1ðœððð 0 0 00 0 ð
ð2ðœððð + ðð 0 0 0ðð1ðœð 0 0 ðð1ðœððð 0 0
ðð2ðœð â ð6 0 0 ðð2ðœððð + ðð 0 0
0 (1 â ðð1 â ðð2) ðœððð â ð7 0 0 0 0
0 0 (1 â ðð1 â ðð2) ðœððð â ð8 0 0 0
(1 â ðð1 â ðð2) ðœð + ðð 0 0 (1 â ðð1 â ðð2) ðœððð â ð9 0 0
ðŒð
0 0 0 âð10 0ðŸð
0 0 0 0 âð11
))))))))))))))))))))))
)
.
(A.3)
Consider the case when R0 = 1. Suppose, further, that ðœðis chosen as a bifurcation parameter. Solving (2) for ðœ
ðfrom
R0 = 1 gives ðœð = ðœâ
ð. The transformed system (A.1) at
the DFE evaluated at ðœð= ðœâ
ðhas a simple zero eigenvalue
(and all other eigenvalues having negative real parts). Hence,the centre manifold theory [47] can be used to analyze thedynamics of (A.1) near ðœ
ð= ðœâ
ð. In particular, the theorem
in [54] (see also [36, 47, 48]) is used (it is reproduced inthe Appendix for convenience). To apply the theorem, thefollowing computations are necessary (it should be noted thatwe are using ðœ
ðinstead of ð for the bifurcation parameter).
Eigenvectors of ðœ(E1)|ðœð=ðœâ
ð
. The Jacobian of (A.1) at ðœð= ðœâ
ð,
denoted by ðœ(E1)|ðœð=ðœâ
ð
, has a right eigenvector (associatedwith the zero eigenvalue) given by
w = (ð€1, ð€2, ð€3, ð€4, ð€5, ð€6, ð€7, ð€8, ð€9, ð€10, ð€11,
ð€12)ð,
(A.4)
where
ð€1 = â1ð[ðœðð€3 +ðœðð€5 +ðœðð€7 +ðœðððð€8
+ðœðððð€9 +ðœðððð€10] ,
ð€2 =1ð1
{[ðð1ðŸð + ðð1ðœð] ð€3 + ðð1ðœðððð€8} ,
ð€3 > 0,
ð€5 > 0,
ð€4 =1ð3
[ðð2ðŸðð€3 + ðð1ðœðð€5 + ðð1ðœðððð€9] ,
ð€6 =1ð5
[ðð1ðŸðð€5 + ðð1ðœðð€7 + ðð1ðœðððð€10] ,
ð€7 > 0,
ð€8 =[(1 â ð
ð1 â ðð2) ðœð + ðð] ð€3
[ð7 â (1 â ðð1 â ðð2) ðœððð],
16 Abstract and Applied Analysis
Stable EEP
Unstable EEP
Unstable DFEStable DFE
LT
R0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
1000
800
600
400
200
0
(a)
Stable EEP
Unstable EEP
Unstable DFEStable DFE
LM
R0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
(b)
Stable EEP
Unstable EEP
Unstable DFEStable DFE
LX
R0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
15
10
5
0
(c)
Figure 6: Backward bifurcation plot of model (2) as a function of time. (a) Individuals who are lost to follow-up with drug sensitive TB (ð).(b) Individuals who are lost to follow-up with MDR (ð). (c) Individuals who are lost to follow-up with XDR (ð). Parameter values used areas given in Table 2.
ð€9 =[(1 â ð
ð1 â ðð2) ðœð + ðð] ð€5
[ð8 â (1 â ðð1 â ðð2) ðœððð],
ð€10 =[(1 â ð
ð1 â ðð2) ðœð + ðð] ð€7
(ð9 â (1 â ðð1 â ðð2) ðœððð),
ð€11 =(ðŒðð€5 + ðŒðð€7)
ð10,
ð€12 =1ð11
[(1âðð1 âðð2) ðŸðð€3 + (1âðð1) ðŸðð€5
+ ðŸðð€7] .
(A.5)
Also, ðœ(E1)|ðœð=ðœâ
ð
has a left eigenvector k = (V1, V2, V3,V4, V5, V6, V7, V8, V9, V10, V11, V12) (associated with the zeroeigenvalue), where
V1 = 0,
V2 =ððV3ð1
,
V4 =ððV4
ð3,
V6 =ððV7
ð5,
V3 > 0,
Abstract and Applied Analysis 17
ðŒT = 0.20
ðŒT = 0.40
ðŒT = 0.60
ðŒT = 0.80
ðŒT = 1.0
0 2 4 6 8 10Time (years)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600To
tal n
umbe
r of i
sola
ted
indi
vidu
als
(a)
ðŒT = 0.20
ðŒT = 0.40
ðŒT = 0.60
ðŒT = 0.80
ðŒT = 1.0
0 2 4 6 8 10Time (years)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Tota
l num
ber o
f los
t to
sight
indi
vidu
als
(b)
Figure 7: Simulation of model (2) as a function of time varying ðŒðfor (a) total number of isolated individuals and (b) total number of
individuals who are lost to follow-up. Parameter values used are as given in Table 2.
ðŒM = 0.20
ðŒM = 0.40
ðŒM = 0.60
ðŒM = 0.80
ðŒM = 1.0
0 2 4 6 8 10Time (years)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Tota
l num
ber o
f iso
late
d in
divi
dual
s
(a)
ðŒM = 0.20
ðŒM = 0.40
ðŒM = 0.60
ðŒM = 0.80
ðŒM = 1.0
0 2 4 6 8 10Time (years)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Tota
l num
ber o
f los
t to
sight
indi
vidu
als
(b)
Figure 8: Simulation of model (2) as a function of time varying ðŒð
for (a) total number of isolated individuals and (b) total number ofindividuals who are lost to follow-up. Parameter values used are as given in Table 2.
V7 > 0,
V5 =1
(ð4 â ðð2ðœð)[ðð1ðœðV4 +ðð1ðŸðV6
+ [(1â ðð1 â ðð2) ðœð +ðð] V9] ,
V8 =1
[ð7 â (1 â ðð1 â ðð2) ðœððð][ðð1ðœðððV2
+ (ðð2ðœððð +ðð) V3] ,
V9 =1
(ð8 â (1 â ðð1 â ðð2) ðœððð)[ðð1ðœðððV4
+ (ðð2ðœððð +ðð) V5] ,
V10 =1
(ð9 â (1 â ðð1 â ðð2) ðœððð)[ðð1ðœðððV6
+ (ðð2ðœððð +ðð) V7] ,
V11 = 0,
V12 = 0.(A.6)
Computations of Bifurcation Coefficients ð and ð. The appli-cation of the theorem (given in the Appendix) entails the
18 Abstract and Applied Analysis
computation of two bifurcation coefficients ð and ð. It can beshown, after some algebraic manipulations, that
ð = V212â
ð,ð=1ð€ðð€ð
ð2ð2
ðð¥ððð¥ð
+ V312â
ð,ð=1ð€ðð€ð
ð2ð3
ðð¥ððð¥ð
+ V412â
ð,ð=1ð€ðð€ð
ð2ð4
ðð¥ððð¥ð
+ V512â
ð,ð=1ð€ðð€ð
ð2ð5
ðð¥ððð¥ð
+ V612â
ð,ð=1ð€ðð€ð
ð2ð6
ðð¥ððð¥ð
+ V712â
ð,ð=1ð€ðð€ð
ð2ð7
ðð¥ððð¥ð
=2ð¥1
(âð€2 âð€3 âð€4 âð€5 âð€6 âð€7 âð€8 âð€9
âð€10 âð€11 âð€12 +ð€12ð) {ðœð (ð€3 +ð€8ðð)
â [ðð1V2 + ðð2V3 + (1â ðð1 â ðð2) V8]
+ ðœð(ð€5 +ð€9ðð)
â [ðð1V4 + ðð2V5 + (1â ðð1 â ðð2) V9]
+ ðœð(ð€7 +ð€10ðð)
â [ðð1V6 + ðð2V7 + (1â ðð1 â ðð2) V10]} .
(A.7)
Furthermore,
ð = V212â
ð=1ð€ð
ð2ð2
ðð¥ðððœâð
+ V312â
ð=1ð€ð
ð2ð3
ðð¥ðððœâð
= (ð€3 +ð€8ðð) [ðð1V2 + ðð2V3 + (1â ðð1 â ðð2) V8]
> 0.
(A.8)
Hence, it follows from Theorem 4.1 of [54] that the trans-formed model (A.1) (or, equivalently, (2)) undergoes back-ward bifurcation atR0 = 1whenever the following inequalityholds:
ð > 0. (A.9)
It is worth noting that if ð = 0 (i.e., reinfectionof recovered individuals does not occur), the bifurcationcoefficient, ð, given in (A.7), reduces to
ð = â2ð¥1
(ð€2 +ð€3 +ð€4 +ð€5 +ð€6 +ð€7 +ð€8 +ð€9
+ð€10 +ð€11) {ðœð (ð€3 +ð€8ðð)
â [ðð1V2 + ðð2V3 + (1â ðð1 â ðð2) V8]
+ ðœð(ð€5 +ð€9ðð)
â [ðð1V4 + ðð2V5 + (1â ðð1 â ðð2) V9]
+ ðœð(ð€7 +ð€10ðð)
â [ðð1V6 + ðð2V7 + (1â ðð1 â ðð2) V10]} .
(A.10)
It follows from (A.10) that the bifurcation coefficient ð < 0(ruling out backward bifurcation in this case, in line withTheorem 4.1 in [54]). Thus, this study shows that the back-ward bifurcation phenomenon ofmodel (A.1) is caused by thereinfection of the recovered individuals in the population.
B. Proof of Theorem 7
Proof. The proof is based on using a comparison theorem.The equations for the infected components of model (2), withð = 0, can be rewritten as
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
(
ððžð (ð¡)
ðð¡
ðð (ð¡)
ðð¡
ððžð (ð¡)
ðð¡
ðð (ð¡)
ðð¡
ððžð (ð¡)
ðð¡
ðð (ð¡)
ðð¡
ðð¿ð (ð¡)
ðð¡
ðð¿ð (ð¡)
ðð¡
ðð¿ð (ð¡)
ðð¡
ððœ (ð¡)
ðð¡
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
)
= (ð¹âð)
(((((((((((((((((((
(
ðžð (ð¡)
ð (ð¡)
ðžð (ð¡)
ð (ð¡)
ðžð (ð¡)
ð (ð¡)
ð¿ð (ð¡)
ð¿ð (ð¡)
ð¿ð (ð¡)
ðœ (ð¡)
)))))))))))))))))))
)
âðð
(((((((((((((((((((
(
ðžð (ð¡)
ð (ð¡)
ðžð (ð¡)
ð (ð¡)
ðžð (ð¡)
ð (ð¡)
ð¿ð (ð¡)
ð¿ð (ð¡)
ð¿ð (ð¡)
ðœ (ð¡)
)))))))))))))))))))
)
,
(B.1)
Abstract and Applied Analysis 19
where ð = 1 â ð, the matrices ð¹ and ð are as given inSection 2.2, andð is nonnegativematrices given, respectively,by
ð = [ð1 | ð2] , (B.2)
where
ð1 =
(((((((((((((
(
0 ðð1ðœð 0 0 0
0 ðð2ðœð 0 0 0
0 0 0 ðð1ðœð 0
0 0 0 ðð2ðœð 0
0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 (1 â ð
ð1 â ðð2) ðœð 0 0 00 0 0 (1 â ð
ð1 â ðð2) ðœð 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0
)))))))))))))
)
,
ð2 =
(((((((((((((
(
0 ðð1ðœððð 0 0 0
0 ðð2ðœððð 0 0 0
0 0 ðð1ðœððð 0 0
0 0 ðð2ðœððð 0 0
ðð1ðœð 0 0 ðð1ðœððð 0ðð2ðœð 0 0 ðð2ðœððð 00 (1 â ð
ð1 â ðð2) ðœððð 0 0 00 0 (1 â ð
ð1 â ðð2) ðœððð 0 0(1 â ðð1 â ðð2) ðœð 0 0 (1 â ðð1 â ðð2) ðœððð 0
0 0 0 0 0
)))))))))))))
)
.
(B.3)
Thus, since ð(ð¡) †ð(ð¡) in Ί for all ð¡ ⥠0, it follows from(B.1) that
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
(
ððžð (ð¡)
ðð¡
ðð (ð¡)
ðð¡
ððžð (ð¡)
ðð¡
ðð (ð¡)
ðð¡
ððžð (ð¡)
ðð¡
ðð (ð¡)
ðð¡
ðð¿ð (ð¡)
ðð¡
ðð¿ð (ð¡)
ðð¡
ðð¿ð (ð¡)
ðð¡
ððœ (ð¡)
ðð¡
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
)
†(ð¹âð)
(((((((((((((((((((
(
ðžð (ð¡)
ð (ð¡)
ðžð (ð¡)
ð (ð¡)
ðžð (ð¡)
ð (ð¡)
ð¿ð (ð¡)
ð¿ð (ð¡)
ð¿ð (ð¡)
ðœ (ð¡)
)))))))))))))))))))
)
. (B.4)
Using the fact that the eigenvalues of the matrix ð¹ â ð allhave negative real parts (see the local stability result givenin Lemma 3, where ð(ð¹ðâ1) < 1 if R0 < 1, which isequivalent to ð¹ â ð having eigenvalues with negative realparts when R0 < 1 [36]), it follows that the linearizeddifferential inequality system (B.4) is stable whenever R0 <1. Consequently, by comparison of theorem [34] (Theorem1.5.2, p. 31),
(ðžð (ð¡) , ð (ð¡) , ð¿ð (ð¡) , ðžð (ð¡) ,ð (ð¡) , ð¿ð (ð¡) , ðžð (ð¡) ,
ð (ð¡) , ð¿ð (ð¡) , ðœ (ð¡)) â (0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0) ,
as ð¡ â â.
(B.5)
Substituting ðžð= ð = ð¿
ð= ðžð= ð = ð¿
ð= ðžð= ð =
ð¿ð= ðœ = 0 into the equations of ð and ð in model (2), and
noting that ð = 0, gives ð(ð¡) â ðâ, ð (ð¡) â 0 as ð¡ â â.Thus, in summary,
(ð (ð¡) , ðžð (ð¡) , ð (ð¡) , ð¿ð (ð¡) , ðžð (ð¡) ,ð (ð¡) , ð¿ð (ð¡) ,
ðžð (ð¡) , ð (ð¡) , ð¿ð (ð¡) , ðœ (ð¡) , ð (ð¡)) â (ð
â, 0, 0, 0, 0,
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0) ,
(B.6)
20 Abstract and Applied Analysis
as ð¡ â â. Hence, the DFE (E0) of model (2), with ð = 0, isGAS in Ί if RÌ0 < 1.
Conflict of Interests
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper.
References
[1] Centers for Disease Control,Multidrug-Resistant TB Fact Sheet,2013, http://www.cdc.gov/tb/publications/factsheets/drtb/mdrtb.htm.
[2] World Health Organization, Tuberculosis Fact Sheet, WorldHealth Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2015, http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs104/en/.
[3] J. R. Andrews, N. S. Shah, N. Gandhi, T. Moll, and G. Friedland,âMultidrug-resistant and extensively drug-resistant tubercu-losis: implications for the HIV epidemic and antiretroviraltherapy rollout in South Africa,â Journal of Infectious Diseases,vol. 196, no. 3, pp. S482âS490, 2007.
[4] World Health Organization, âGlobal tuberculosis report 2014,âhttp://www.who.int/tb/publications/global report/gtbr14 exec-utive summary.pdf.
[5] S. Basu andA. P.Galvani, âThe transmission and control of XDRTB in South Africa: an operations research and mathematicalmodelling approach,â Epidemiology & Infection, vol. 136, no. 12,pp. 1585â1598, 2008.
[6] J. Hughes, H. Cox, and N. Ford, âSanatoria for drug-resistanttuberculosis: an outdated response,â The Lancet, vol. 379, no.9832, pp. 2148â2149, 2012.
[7] K. Dheda and G. B. Migliori, âThe global rise of extensivelydrug-resistant tuberculosis: is the time to bring back sanatorianow overdue?âThe Lancet, vol. 379, no. 9817, pp. 773â775, 2012.
[8] K. R. Jacobson, D. B. Tierney, C. Y. Jeon, C. D. Mitnick,and M. B. Murray, âTreatment outcomes among patients withextensively drug-resistant tuberculosis: systematic review andmeta-analysis,â Clinical Infectious Diseases, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 6â14, 2010.
[9] P. Sampathkumar, âDealing with threat of drug-resistant tuber-culosis: background information for interpreting the AndrewSpeaker and related cases,âMayo Clinic Proceedings, vol. 82, no.7, pp. 799â802, 2007.
[10] American Lung Association, Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis(MDR-TB) Fact Sheet, 2013, http://www.lung.org/lung-disease/tuberculosis/factsheets/multidrug-resistant.html.
[11] B. Song, C. Castillo-Chavez, and J. P. Aparicio, âTuberculosismodels with fast and slow dynamics: the role of close and casualcontacts,âMathematical Biosciences, vol. 180, pp. 187â205, 2002.
[12] R. I. Hickson, G. N. Mercer, and K. M. Lokuge, âA metapopula-tion model of tuberculosis transmission with a case study fromhigh to low burden areas,â PLoS ONE, vol. 7, no. 4, Article IDe34411, 2012.
[13] Y. Liu, Z. Sun, G. Sun et al., âModeling transmission of tuber-culosis with MDR and undetected cases,â Discrete Dynamics inNature and Society, vol. 2011, Article ID 296905, 12 pages, 2011.
[14] C. Castillo-Chavez andZ. Feng, âTo treat or not to treat: the caseof tuberculosis,â Journal of Mathematical Biology, vol. 35, no. 6,pp. 629â656, 1997.
[15] T. Cohen and M. Murray, âModeling epidemics of multidrug-resistant M. tuberculosis of heterogeneous fitness,â NatureMedicine, vol. 10, no. 10, pp. 1117â1121, 2004.
[16] M. G. M. Gomes, A. O. Franco, M. C. Gomes, and G. F. Medley,âThe reinfection threshold promotes variability in tuberculosisepidemiology and vaccine efficacy,â Proceedings of the RoyalSociety B: Biological Sciences, vol. 271, no. 1539, pp. 617â623,2004.
[17] T. C. Porco and S. M. Blower, âQuantifying the intrinsictransmission dynamics of tuberculosis,â Theoretical PopulationBiology, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 117â132, 1998.
[18] E. Jung, S. Lenhart, and Z. Feng, âOptimal control of treatmentsin a two-strain tuberculosis model,â Discrete and ContinuousDynamical Systems B, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 473â482, 2002.
[19] S. M. Blower, A. R. McLean, T. C. Porco et al., âThe intrin-sic transmission dynamics of tuberculosis epidemics,â NatureMedicine, vol. 1, no. 8, pp. 815â821, 1995.
[20] T. Cohen, C. Colijn, B. Finklea, and M. Murray, âExogenousre-infection and the dynamics of tuberculosis epidemics: localeffects in a networkmodel of transmission,â Journal of the RoyalSociety Interface, vol. 4, no. 14, pp. 523â531, 2007.
[21] Z. Feng,W.Huang, andC. Castillo-Chavez, âOn the role of vari-able latent periods in mathematical models for tuberculosis,âJournal of Dynamics and Differential Equations, vol. 13, no. 2,pp. 425â452, 2001.
[22] Y. Emvudu, R. Demasse, and D. Djeudeu, âOptimal control ofthe lost to follow up in a tuberculosis model,â Computationaland Mathematical Methods in Medicine, vol. 2011, Article ID398476, 12 pages, 2011.
[23] S. Bowong, Y. Emvudu, D. P. Moualeu, and J. J. Tewa, âMathe-matical properties of a tuberculosis model with two differentialinfectivity and N latent classes,â Journal of Nonlinear Systemsand Applications, vol. 1, pp. 13â26, 2010.
[24] M. W. Borgdorff, âNew measurable indicator for tuberculosiscase detection,â Emerging Infectious Diseases, vol. 10, no. 9, 2004.
[25] C. Dye, G. P. Garnett, K. Sleeman, and B. G. Williams,âProspects for worldwide tuberculosis control under the WHODOTS strategy. Directly observed short-course therapy,â TheLancet, vol. 352, no. 9144, pp. 1886â1891, 1998.
[26] P. M. Sutton, M. Nicas, and R. J. Harrison, âTuberculosis iso-lation: comparison of written procedures and actual practicesin three California hospitals,â Infection Control and HospitalEpidemiology, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 28â32, 2000.
[27] S. E. Weis, P. C. Slocum, F. X. Blais et al., âThe effect of directlyobserved therapy on the rates of drug resistance and relapse intuberculosis,âTheNewEngland Journal ofMedicine, vol. 330, no.17, pp. 1179â1184, 1994.
[28] J. Frith, âHistory of tuberculosis. Part 2âthe sanatoria and thediscoveries of the Tubercle bacillus,â Journal of Military andVeteransâ Health, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 36â41, 2014.
[29] M. R. OâDonnell, N. Padayatchi, C. Kvasnovsky, L. Werner,I. Master, and C. R. Horsburgh Jr., âTreatment outcomes forextensively drug-resistant tuberculosis and HIV co-infection,âEmerging Infectious Diseases, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 416â424, 2013.
[30] D. P. Moualeu, S. Bowong, and Y. Emvudu, âGlobal stability ofa tuberculosis model with N latent classes,â Journal of AppliedMathematics & Informatics, vol. 29, no. 5-6, pp. 1097â1115, 2011.
[31] S. Bowong and J. J. Tewa, âMathematical analysis of a tuber-culosis model with differential infectivity,â Communications inNonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, vol. 14, no. 11, pp.4010â4021, 2009.
Abstract and Applied Analysis 21
[32] D. P. Moualeu, M. Weiser, R. Ehrig, and P. Deuflhard, âOptimalcontrol for a tuberculosis model with undetected cases inCameroon,â Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numer-ical Simulation, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 986â1003, 2015.
[33] H. R. Thieme, Mathematics in Population Biology, PrincetonUniversity Press, 2003.
[34] V. Lakshmikantham, S. Leela, and A. A. Martynyuk, StabilityAnalysis of Nonlinear Systems, Marcel Dekker, New York, NY,USA, 1989.
[35] H.W.Hethcote, âThemathematics of infectious diseases,â SIAMReview, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 599â653, 2000.
[36] P. van denDriessche and J.Watmough, âReproduction numbersand sub-threshold endemic equilibria for compartmental mod-els of disease transmission,âMathematical Biosciences, vol. 180,pp. 29â48, 2002.
[37] R. M. Anderson and R. M. May, Infectious Diseases of Humans,Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1991.
[38] O. Diekmann, J. A. Heesterbeek, and J. A. Metz, âOn thedefinition and computation of the basic reproduction ratio ð
0
inmodels for infectious diseases in heterogeneous populations,âJournal of Mathematical Biology, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 365â382,1990.
[39] S. M. Blower and H. Dowlatabadi, âSensitivity and uncertaintyanalysis of complex models of disease transmission: an HIVmodel, as an example,â International Statistical Review, vol. 62,no. 2, pp. 229â243, 1994.
[40] S. Marino, I. B. Hogue, C. J. Ray, and D. E. Kirschner, âAmethodology for performing global uncertainty and sensitivityanalysis in systems biology,â Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol.254, no. 1, pp. 178â196, 2008.
[41] M. D. McKay, R. J. Beckman, andW. J. Conover, âA comparisonof three methods for selecting values of input variables in theanalysis of output from a computer code,â Technometrics, vol.21, no. 2, pp. 239â245, 1979.
[42] R. G. McLeod, J. F. Brewster, A. B. Gumel, and D. A. Slonowsky,âSensitivity and uncertainty analyses for a SARS model withtime-varying inputs and outputs,âMathematical Biosciences andEngineering, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 527â544, 2006.
[43] S.-F. H. Schmitz, âEffects of treatment or/and vaccination onHIV transmission in homosexuals with genetic heterogeneity,âMathematical Biosciences, vol. 167, no. 1, pp. 1â18, 2000.
[44] F. B. Agusto and A. B. Gumel, âQualitative dynamics of lowly-and highly-pathogenic avian influenza strains,â MathematicalBiosciences, vol. 243, no. 2, pp. 147â162, 2013.
[45] F. B. Agusto, A. B. Gumel, S. Lenhart, and A. Odoi, âMathemat-ical analysis of amodel for the transmission dynamics of bovinetuberculosis,â Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences,vol. 34, no. 15, pp. 1873â1887, 2011.
[46] F. Brauer, âBackward bifurcations in simple vaccination mod-els,â Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 298,no. 2, pp. 418â431, 2004.
[47] J. Carr,Applications of CentreManifoldTheory, vol. 35, Springer,New York, NY, USA, 1981.
[48] J. Dushoff, W. Huang, and C. Castillo-Chavez, âBackwardsbifurcations and catastrophe in simple models of fatal diseases,âJournal of Mathematical Biology, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 227â248,1998.
[49] E. H. Elbasha and A. B. Gumel, âTheoretical assessment ofpublic health impact of imperfect prophylactic HIV-1 vaccineswith therapeutic benefits,â Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, vol.68, no. 3, pp. 577â614, 2006.
[50] S. M. Garba and A. B. Gumel, âEffect of cross-immunity on thetransmission dynamics of two strains of dengue,â InternationalJournal of Computer Mathematics, vol. 87, no. 10, pp. 2361â2384,2010.
[51] S. M. Garba, A. B. Gumel, and M. R. Abu Bakar, âBackwardbifurcations in dengue transmission dynamics,â MathematicalBiosciences, vol. 215, no. 1, pp. 11â25, 2008.
[52] O. Sharomi, C. N. Podder, A. B. Gumel, E. H. Elbasha, andJ. Watmough, âRole of incidence function in vaccine-inducedbackward bifurcation in some HIV models,â MathematicalBiosciences, vol. 210, no. 2, pp. 436â463, 2007.
[53] O. Sharomi, C. N. Podder, A. B. Gumel, and B. Song, âMath-ematical analysis of the transmission dynamics of HIV/TBco-infection in the presence of treatment,â Mathematical Bio-sciences and Engineering, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 145â174, 2008.
[54] C. Castillo-Chavez and B. Song, âDynamical models of tuber-culosis and their applications,â Mathematical Biosciences andEngineering, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 361â404, 2004.
Submit your manuscripts athttp://www.hindawi.com
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Mathematical Problems in Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com
Differential EquationsInternational Journal of
Volume 2014
Applied MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Probability and StatisticsHindawi Publishing Cor