0% found this document useful (0 votes)
5 views19 pages

Shateyi Et Al

This article discusses a modified approach for analyzing the global stability of a mathematical model for infectious diseases using the Volterra–Lyapunov matrix method. The authors demonstrate that the endemic equilibrium is globally stable by employing Lyapunov functions and symmetric positive definite matrices, which simplifies the analysis of complex systems with nonlinear incidence rates. Numerical simulations support the analytical results, indicating the effectiveness of the proposed method in proving global stability in epidemiological models.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
5 views19 pages

Shateyi Et Al

This article discusses a modified approach for analyzing the global stability of a mathematical model for infectious diseases using the Volterra–Lyapunov matrix method. The authors demonstrate that the endemic equilibrium is globally stable by employing Lyapunov functions and symmetric positive definite matrices, which simplifies the analysis of complex systems with nonlinear incidence rates. Numerical simulations support the analytical results, indicating the effectiveness of the proposed method in proving global stability in epidemiological models.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 19

SS symmetry

Article
An Approach for the Global Stability of Mathematical
Model of an Infectious Disease
Mojtaba Masoumnezhad 1, *, Maziar Rajabi 2 , Amirahmad Chapnevis 3 , Aleksei Dorofeev 4 ,
Stanford Shateyi 5, *, Narges Shayegh Kargar 6 and Hassan Saberi Nik 7
1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Chamran, Guilan Branch,
Technical and Vocational University (TVU), Tehran 1435761137, Iran
2 Department of Software Engineering, University of Applied Science and Technology, Shabestar,
Tabriz 5164864763, Iran; [email protected]
3 Department of Computer Engineering and Information Technology, Amirkabir University of Technology,
Tehran 1591634311, Iran; [email protected]
4 Head of Department of Propaedeutics of Dental Diseases, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University,
119991 Moscow, Russia; [email protected]
5 Department of Mathematics, University of Venda, Private Bag X5050, Thohoyandou 0950, South Africa
6 Department of Mathematics, Payame Noor University (PNU), Tehran 193953697, Iran;
[email protected] or [email protected]
7 Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Neyshabur, Neyshabur 9319774446, Iran;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected] (M.M.); [email protected] (S.S.)

Received: 1 August 2020; Accepted: 4 October 2020; Published: 27 October 2020 

Abstract: The global stability analysis for the mathematical model of an infectious disease is discussed
here. The endemic equilibrium is shown to be globally stable by using a modification of the
Volterra–Lyapunov matrix method. The basis of the method is the combination of Lyapunov functions and
the Volterra–Lyapunov matrices. By reducing the dimensions of the matrices and under some conditions,
we can easily show the global stability of the endemic equilibrium. To prove the stability based on
Volterra–Lyapunov matrices, we use matrices with the symmetry properties (symmetric positive definite).
The results developed in this paper can be applied in more complex systems with nonlinear incidence
rates. Numerical simulations are presented to illustrate the analytical results.

Keywords: global stability; epidemic model; Lyapunov function; Volterra–Lyapunov stability

1. Introduction
Mathematical modeling has the best predictive analysis to accurately predict the prevalence of
infectious diseases, and with the help of predicting the prevalence of infection, effective strategies
for disease control can be determined [1–4]. The mathematical models used for infectious diseases
have evolved rapidly in recent decades. One of the reasons for this progress and development is the
improvement of researchers’ ability to collect data [5–11].
Investigation of the global stability of endemic equilibrium in the mathematical model of infectious
diseases is one of the important issues in epidemiology [12–20]. Several methods have been proposed by
researchers to prove the stability of equilibrium points, such as monotone dynamical systems, the geometric
approach, and the method of Lyapunov functions [21–25].

Symmetry 2020, 12, 1778; doi:10.3390/sym12111778 www.mdpi.com/journal/symmetry


Symmetry 2020, 12, 1778 2 of 19

Kar and Jana presented the mathematical model of an infectious disease [26]. They examined the
local and global stability of the disease free and endemic equilibrium for fixed controls. Then, they
studied the optimal control of the disease with time dependent controls. For the global stability of the
endemic equilibrium, Liao and Wang [27] proposed a combination of the Lyapunov function method
and Volterra–Lyapunov properties and proved the global asymptotic stability of the endemic equilibria.
This method does not meet the challenges of the Lyapunov function method including determining
appropriate Lyapunov function and coefficients. In this work, we will present a modification of the
method of Lyapunov functions combined with the theory of Volterra–Lyapunov stable matrices [27–29].
The fundamental difference between the two methods is that our modified method repeatedly uses
Lemma 2.4, Lemma 2.8 (presented in [27]) and reducing the dimensions of the matrices, while in some parts
of the original method this technique is not used. This approach transfers the analysis from differentiable
functions to related matrices. The main advantage of this modification is that the higher dimensional
matrices can be easily implemented. In each step, we reduce the dimensions of the matrix and use the
property of the Volterra–Lyapunov matrices. This can reduce the computational complexity of the original
method [27]. Furthermore, the authors in [26] used the complicated concepts and theorems to show
the global stability of the endemic equilibrium. Tian and Wang in [30] investigated the global stability
of the cholera epidemic models, based on the monotone dynamical systems, the geometric approach,
and Volterra–Lyapunov stable matrices. The models used in their work, including different types of
functions, included transmission pathways, and pathogen growth rate. Using the modified method, we
can easily prove the global stability of models with nonlinear incidence rates.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we investigate the mathematical model, boundness
and equilibria of model of infectious disease with fixed controls. The global stability of the endemic
equilibrium is given in Section 3. In Section 4, numerical results demonstrate the effectiveness of the
proposed method is presented. In this section, we have compared our modification with the original
method. Finally, Section 5, contains a summarized conclusion of the results.

2. The Mathematical Model


The mathematical model of the epidemic model with two controls was proposed by Kar and Jana [26].
In this model, we have four types of population, which are represented by susceptible S(t), infected I (t),
recovered R(t) and vaccinated V (t).
The model consists of the following system of ordinary differential equations:

dS λSI
= (1 − u1 ) a − dS − + βR + m(1 − ρ1 ) I + bu2 (1 − ρ2 ) I + σV,
dt 1 + αI
dI λSI
= − (d + m + γ + bu2 ) I, (1)
dt 1 + αI
dR
= −(d + β) R + (mρ1 + bu2 ρ2 ) I,
dt
dV
= u1 a − (d + σ)V,
dt

The initial condition of System (1) are S(0) > 0, I (0) > 0, R(0) > 0, V (0) ≥ 0.
The used parameters of System (1) are shown in Table 1.
Symmetry 2020, 12, 1778 3 of 19

Table 1. The parameters of System (1).

Parameter Description
a The total recruitment
u1 The constant vaccination control
σ Transmission rates from vaccinated to susceptible
α The reciprocal of half-saturation
λ The infection force parameter
λSI
1+αI The saturated infection rate
m Infected population rate that have recovered naturally
ρ1 The portion recovered (0 < ρ1 < 1)
u2 The constant treatment control
b The effectiveness of the treatment
bu2 The rate by which the infected populations recovered
βR The part of the recovered class becomes susceptible
ρ2 Recovered sections that go to recovery class (0 < ρ2 < 1)
γ Death rate of infected people due to disease attack
d The natural death rate

2.1. Equilibrium of the Model for Fixed Controls


Throughout this paper, we assume that the controls u1 and u2 are constant.
System (1) has two possible nonnegative equilibria. The first one is E0 (S1 , 0, 0, V ∗ ) where

σV ∗ + (1 − u1 ) a
S1 = ,
d
u a
V∗ = 1 .
d+σ

This equilibrium is the disease free equilibrium. The other equilibrium is E∗ = (S∗ , I ∗ , R∗ , V ∗ ), where

S1 (1 + αI ∗ )
S∗ = ,
R0
S1 ( R 0 − 1 )
I∗ = mρ1 +bu2 +ρ2
,
αS1 + ( d+d γ + ( β+d)
) R0
(mρ1 + bu2 ρ2 )I∗
R∗ = ,
β+d
∗ u1 a
V = ,
d+σ

and R0 = d+m+ λS1 ∗ ∗ λS1


γ+bu2 . It is easy to see that E is feasible if I > 0, i.e., if R0 = d+m+γ+bu2 > 1. The average
rate of infection in susceptible individuals caused by a number of secondary infections is called the basic
reproduction number R0 .
Now, we want to get the basic reproduction number of System (1). Let us introduce matrices F and V,
as follows:
 
λS1 0
F= ,
 
0 0
Symmetry 2020, 12, 1778 4 of 19

 
d + m + γ + bu2 0
V= .
 
−(mρ1 + bu2 ρ2 ) d + β

Then by applying the next generation matrix method developed by van den Driessche and
Watmough [31], the basic reproduction number R0 is the spectral radius of the next generation operator
FV −1 . Thus R0 = ρ( FV −1 ) = d+m+
λS1
γ+bu . 2

2.2. Boundedness
Proposition 1. The closed set
n ao
Γ = (S, I, R, V ) ∈ R4+ : 0 ≤ S + I + R + V ≤ ,
d
is positively invariant.

Proof. Let (S(t), I (t), R(t), V (t)) be any solution with positive initial conditions. We have,

N ( t ) = S ( t ) + I ( t ) + R ( t ) + V ( t ).

The time derivative of N (t) along the solution of (1) is

dN
= a − dS(t) − dI (t) − dR(t) − dV (t) − γI (t) ≤ a − dN (t).
dt
Using theory of differential equations, we get
a
N (t) ≤ (1 − e−dt ) + N0 e−dt ,
d
and for t → ∞, we have
a
lim N (t) ≤ .
t→∞ d

Hence, Γ is positively invariant and it is sufficient to consider solutions of System (1) in it.

3. Global Stability of the Endemic Equilibrium


In this section, we are concerned with the global stability of (1) in a positively invariant set of Γ. To do
this, we define the Lyapunov function as follows:

L = w1 ( S − S ∗ ) 2 + w2 ( I − I ∗ ) 2 + w3 ( R − R ∗ ) 2 + w4 ( V − V ∗ ) 2 , (2)

where w1 , w2 , w3 and w4 are positive constants. Calculating the time derivative of L along the trajectories
of System (1), we obtain:
Symmetry 2020, 12, 1778 5 of 19

dL
= 2w1 (S − S∗ )Ṡ + 2w2 ( I − I ∗ ) İ + 2w3 ( R − R∗ ) Ṙ + 2w4 (V − V ∗ ) Ṙ,
dt
= 2w1 (S − S∗ )[−d(S − S∗ ) + β( R − R∗ ) + (m(1 − ρ1 ) + bu2 (1 − ρ2 ))( I − I ∗ )
λSI λS∗ I ∗
+ σ (V − V ∗ ) − + ]
1 + αI 1 + αI ∗
λSI λS∗ I ∗
+ 2w2 ( I − I ∗ )[−(d + m + γ + bu2 )( I − I ∗ ) + − ]
1 + αI 1 + αI ∗
+ 2w3 ( R − R∗ )[−(d + β)( R − R∗ ) + (mρ1 + bu2 ρ2 )( I − I ∗ )]
+ 2w4 (V − V ∗ )[−(d + σ)(V − V ∗ )].

λS∗ I
Then, we add the expression 1+αI into the first and second square bracket and then subtract it. As a
result, we obtain

dL
= 2w1 (S − S∗ )[−d(S − S∗ ) + β( R − R∗ ) + (m(1 − ρ1 ) + bu2 (1 − ρ2 ))( I − I ∗ )
dt
λSI λS∗ I ∗ λS∗ I λS∗ I
+ σ (V − V ∗ ) − + + − ]
1 + αI 1 + αI ∗ 1 + αI 1 + αI
λSI λS∗ I ∗ λS∗ I λS∗ I
+ 2w2 ( I − I ∗ )[−(d + m + γ + bu2 )( I − I ∗ ) + − + − ]
1 + αI 1 + αI ∗ 1 + αI 1 + αI
+ 2w3 ( R − R∗ )[−(d + β)( R − R∗ ) + (mρ1 + bu2 ρ2 )( I − I ∗ )]
+ 2w4 (V − V ∗ )[−(d + σ)(V − V ∗ )],

therefore, we have

dL λI
= 2w1 (S − S∗ )[−(d + )(S − S∗ ) + β( R − R∗ )
dt 1 + αI
λS∗
+(m(1 − ρ1 ) + bu2 (1 − ρ2 ) − )( I − I ∗ ) + σ(V − V ∗ )]
(1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )
λI λS∗
+ 2w2 ( I − I ∗ )[ (S − S∗ ) − (d + m + γ + bu2 + )( I − I ∗ )]
1 + αI (1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )
+ 2w3 ( R − R∗ )[−(d + β)( R − R∗ ) + (mρ1 + bu2 ρ2 )( I − I ∗ )]
+ 2w4 (V − V ∗ )[−(d + σ)(V − V ∗ )],

from where,

dL λI
= −2w1 (d + )(S − S∗ )2 + 2w1 β(S − S∗ )( R − R∗ )
dt 1 + αI
λS∗
+2w1 (m(1 − ρ1 ) + bu2 (1 − ρ2 ) − )(S − S∗ )( I − I ∗ ) + 2w1 σ(S − S∗ )(V − V ∗ )
(1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )
λI λS∗
+ 2w2 (S − S∗ )( I − I ∗ ) − 2w2 (d + m + γ + bu2 + )( I − I ∗ )2
1 + αI (1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )

− 2w3 (d + β)( R − R∗ )2 + 2w3 (mρ1 + bu2 ρ2 )( I − I ∗ )( R − R∗ ) − 2w4 (d + σ)(V − V ∗ )2


= Y (WA + A T W )Y T , (3)
Symmetry 2020, 12, 1778 6 of 19

where Y = [S − S∗ , I − I ∗ , R − R∗ , V − V ∗ ], W = diag(w1 , w2 , w3 , w4 ), and


 λS∗ 
−(d + λI
1+αI ) m(1 − ρ1 ) + bu2 (1 − ρ2 ) − (1+αI )(1+αI ∗ )
β α
 
 
λS∗
−(d + m + γ + bu2 +
 λI 

 1+αI (1+αI )(1+αI ∗ )
) 0 0 

A=

.
 (4)
0 mρ1 + bu2 ρ2 −(d + β) 0
 
 
 
 
0 0 0 −(d + σ)

To establish the global stability of the endemic equilibrium E∗ , we investigate that the matrix A
defined in Equation (4) is Volterra–Lyapunov stable. Below we briefly review the following prerequisites:
Here, we recall the basic definitions related to Volterra–Lyapunov stable matrices [26]. Suppose, An×n
is a real matrix.
(D1) All the eigenvalues of A have negative (positive) real parts if and only if there exists a matrix
H > 0 (that is, mean H is symmetric positive definite) such that H A + A T H T < 0(> 0) [32].
(D2) The nonsingular matrix An×n is Volterra–Lyapunov stable if there exists a positive diagonal
n × n matrix M such that MA + A T M T < 0.
(D3) The nonsingular matrix An×n is diagonal stable (or positive stable) if there exists a positive
diagonal matrix Mn×n such" that MA +#A T M T > 0.
d11 d12
(L1) [32,33]. The D = is Volterra–Lyapunov stable if and only if:
d21 d22
(C1-1) d11 < 0,
(C1-2) d22 < 0,
(C1-3) det( D ) = d11 d22 − d12 d21 > 0.
(L2) [34,35]. Suppose the nonsingular Dn×n = [dij ], (n ≥ 2), Mn×n = diag(m1 , · · · , mn ) is a positive
diagonal matrix and H = D −1 , such that:
(C2-1) dnn > 0,
(C2-2) MeDe +( MeDe )T > 0 ,
(C2-3) MeHf +( M f ) T > 0,
eH
it is possible to choose mn > 0 such that MD + D T M T > 0.
Note that, D e denote the (n − 1) × (n − 1) matrix obtained from D by deleting its last row and
last column.

Theorem 1. The matrix A defined in Equation (4) is Volterra–Lyapunov stable.

Proof. Clearly − A44 > 0. Let us consider D = − Ã, denote the 3 × 3 matrix obtained from − A by deleting
its last row and last column. From Equation (4), we obtain

λS∗
 
(d + λI
1+αI ) −m(1 − ρ1 ) − bu2 (1 − ρ2 ) + (1+αI )(1+αI ∗ )
−β
 
 
λS∗
 
D = − Ã = 
 − 1+λIαI (d + m + γ + bu2 + (1+αI )(1+αI ∗ )
) 0 .
 (5)
 
 
0 −mρ1 − bu2 ρ2 (d + β)
Symmetry 2020, 12, 1778 7 of 19

Based on (L2), we state and prove the following results. The first Lemma, proves that D = − Ã is
diagonal stable and in the next Lemma, we show the H = −g A−1 is diagonal stable. Therefore, all the
conditions of (L2) are satisfied. Hence the matrix A is Volterra–Lyapunov stable.

Lemma 1. The matrix D defined in Equation (5), is diagonal stable.

Proof. Let’s now discuss the diagonal stability of D. It is guaranteed by the following steps:

Step 1. It is obvious that D33 > 0.


Step 2. By using (L2), we shall prove that the matrix D̃ is diagonal stable. From (5), we obtain

λS∗
 
(d + λI
1+αI ) −m(1 − ρ1 ) − bu2 (1 − ρ2 ) + (1+αI )(1+αI ∗ )
D̃ =  .
 
λS∗
− 1+λIαI (d + m + γ + bu2 + (1+αI )(1+αI ∗ )
)

Obviously, D̃11 > 0, and D̃22 > 0. It remains to show that det( D̃ ) > 0:

det( D̃ ) =
λS∗ λI
d(d + m + γ + bu2 + )+ (m + bu2 )
(1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ ) 1 + αI
λI λS∗ λI
+ (d + γ + ∗
)− (m + bu2 )
1 + αI (1 + αI )(1 + αI ) 1 + αI
λI λS∗
+ (mρ1 + bu2 ρ2 + ),
1 + αI (1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )

then we have

det( D̃ ) =
λS∗ λI λS∗
d(d + m + γ + bu2 + ) + ( d + γ + )
(1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ ) 1 + αI (1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )
λI λS∗
+ (mρ1 + bu2 ρ2 + ) > 0,
1 + αI (1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )

therefore D̃ is diagonal stable.


Step 3. Now, we must show that D g−1 is diagonal stable. Let us consider the D −1 as following:

 
d11 d12 d13
D −1 =  d21 d22 d23  ,
 
d31 d32 d33
Symmetry 2020, 12, 1778 8 of 19

where,

λS∗
d11 = (d + β)[d + m + γ + bu2 + ],
(1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )
λS∗
d12 = (d + β)[m(1 − ρ1 ) + bu2 (1 − ρ2 ) − ] + β(mρ1 + bu2 ρ2 ),
(1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )
λS∗
d13 = β(d + m + γ + bu2 + ),
(1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )
λI
d21 = ( d + β ),
1 + αI

λI
d22 = (d + )(d + β),
1 + αI
λI
d23 =β ,
1 + αI
λI
d31 = (mρ1 + bu2 ρ2 ),
1 + αI
λI
d32 = (d + )(mρ1 + bu2 ρ2 ),
1 + αI
λS∗ λI
d33 = d(d + m + γ + bu2 + )+ (m + γ + mρ1 + bu2 ρ2 )
(1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ ) 1 + αI
λI λS∗
+2 ( ).
1 + αI (1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )

Now, we have D
g −1 as:

−1 = 1
D
g
det( D )
 
λS∗ λS∗
(d + β)[d + m + γ + bu2 + (1+αI )(1+αI ∗ )
] (d + β)[m(1 − ρ1 ) + bu2 (1 − ρ2 ) − (1+αI )(1+αI ∗ )
]+ β(mρ1 + bu2 ρ2 )
 .
λI λI
1+αI ( d + β ) (d + 1+αI )( d + β)

Following some calculations, we obtain that

det( D ) =
λI λS∗
d(d + β)(m + bu2 ) + (d + β)(d + )(d + γ + )
1 + αI (1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )
λI λI λS∗
+d (mρ1 + bu2 ρ2 ) + (d + β)( ) ) > 0,
1 + αI 1 + αI (1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )
Symmetry 2020, 12, 1778 9 of 19

Then

det( D
g −1 ) =

1 λS∗
d(d + β)2 (d + m + γ + bu2 + )
(det( D )) 2 (1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )
1 λI λS∗
+ ( d + β )2 ( )(d + γ + )
(det( D )) 2 1 + αI (1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )
1 2 λI λS∗
+ ( d + β ) ( )( )
(det( D ))2 1 + αI (1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )
1 λI
+ 2
d(d + β)( )(mρ1 + bu2 ρ2 ) > 0.
(det( D )) 1 + αI

It is easy to see, D
g −1 > 0 and D
g −1 > 0. Therefore, D
g −1 is diagonal stable.
11 22

A−1 is diagonal stable.


Lemma 2. The matrix H = −g

A−1 as following:
Proof. We can obtain the −g
 
e11 e12 e13
1
A −1 ) =
H = (−g  e21 e22 e23  ,
 
det(− A)
e31 e32 e33

where,

λS∗
e11 = (d + β)(d + σ )(d + β)2 (d + m + γ + bu2 + ),
(1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )
λS∗
e12 = (d + β)(d + σ )(m + bu2 ) − d(d + σ )(mρ1 + bu2 ρ2 + )
(1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )
λS∗
− β(d + σ)( ),
(1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )
λS∗
e13 = β(d + σ )(d + m + γ + bu2 + ),
(1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )
λI
e21 = (d + β)(d + σ )( ),
1 + αI
λI
e22 = (d + β)(d + σ )(d + ),
1 + αI
λI
e23 = β(d + σ )( ),
1 + αI
e31 = (d + σ )(mρ1 + bu2 ρ2 ),
λI
e32 = (d + σ )(d + )(mρ1 + bu2 ρ2 ),
1 + αI
λS∗
e33 = d(d + m + γ + bu2 + ),
(1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )
λI 2λS∗
(d + σ)( )(d + γ + mρ1 + bu2 ρ2 + ).
1 + αI (1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )
Symmetry 2020, 12, 1778 10 of 19

It is obvious that H33 > 0. Below, we show H̃ and H


g −1 are diagonally stable.

" #
1 e11 e12
H̃ = .
det(− A) e21 e22

First, we show that det(− A) > 0:

det(− A) =
λS∗
d(d + β)(d + σ )(dm + γ + bu2 + )
(1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )
λI λS∗
(d + β)(d + σ)( )(d + γ + )
1 + αI (1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )
λI λS∗
+d (d + σ)(mρ1 + bu2 ρ2 + )
1 + αI (1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )
λI λS∗
+β (d + σ)( ) > 0.
1 + αI (1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )

Also, we can show that det( H̃ ) > 0 (see the Appendix A).
It remains to show that H
g −1 is diagonal stabe. Define

" #
−1 = 1 h11 h12
H
g .
det( H ) h21 h22

The h11 is writen as

λS∗ λI
h11 = d(d + β)(d + σ )2 (dm + γ + bu2 + ∗
)(d + )
(1 + αI )(1 + αI ) 1 + αI
λI λI 2λS∗
+ d ( d + σ )2 ( d + )) )(d + γ + mρ1 + bu2 ρ2 + )
1 + αI 1 + αI (1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )
λI λI 2λS∗
+ β ( d + σ )2 ( d + )) )(d + γ + ) > 0.
1 + αI 1 + αI (1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )

The h22 is writen as

λS∗
h22 = d(d + β)(d + σ )2 (d + m + γ + bu2 + )2
(1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )
λI λI 2λS∗
+ d ( d + σ )2 ( d + )) )(d + γ + mρ1 + bu2 ρ2 + )
1 + αI 1 + αI (1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )
λI 2λS∗ λS∗
+ β ( d + σ )2 )(d + γ + ∗
)(d + m + γ + bu2 + ) > 0.
1 + αI (1 + αI )(1 + αI ) (1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )

It is easy to see det( H ) > 0, see the Appendix B. Therefore, H


g −1 is diagonal stable.

Summarizing the above discussions, we have the following conclusions for the globally asymptotically
stablity of the endemic equilibrium.

Theorem 2. When R0 > 1, the endemic equilibrium E∗ = (S∗ , I ∗ , R∗ , V ∗ ), of Model (1) is globally asymptotically
stable, in Γ.
Symmetry 2020, 12, 1778 11 of 19

Proof. Lemmas 1 and 2 with the aid of Theorem 1, guarantee that the endemic equilibrium of the model
System (1) is globally asymptotically stable.

4. Numerical Simulations and Discussion


In this section, we present some numerical simulations of System (1) using the basic reproduction
number R0 , to support the analytical results. Parameters were taken from [26].

4.1. Simulations
Example 1. We choose the parameter values as follows: a = 100, d = 0.2, λ = 0.01, β = 0.4, σ = 0.05, m = 0.8,
ρ1 = 0.78, ρ2 = 0.93, γ = 0.02, α = 0.01, u1 = u2 = 0.5, b = 15.

With the mentioned parameters, System (1) has only a disease-free equilibrium point of
E0 = (300, 0, 0, 200). In this case, the basic reproduction number is less than one. The phase diagram is
demonstrated in Figure 1, at different initial values I (0) = 1, 100, 200, 600, 1000, to validate the stability
of the disease free equilibrium at I = 0, S = 300. In Figure 2, we observe that the five orbits converge to
the E0 at R = 0, S = 300, with five different initial conditions R(0) = 1, 100, 200, 600, 1000. In Figure 3,
there are five solution curves corresponding to initial conditions with V (0) = 1, 100, 200, 600, 1000, which
ensures the stability of the disease free equilibrium at V = 200, S = 300.

1000

800

600
infected number

400

200

−200
300 400 500 600 700 800 900
susceptible number

Figure 1. The phase portraits of I vs. S for System (1), with initial conditions I (0) = 1, 100, 200, 600, 1000, (R0 < 1).
Symmetry 2020, 12, 1778 12 of 19

1000

800

600

recovered number
400

200

−200
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
susceptible number

Figure 2. The phase portraits of R vs. S for System (1), with initial conditions R(0) = 1, 100, 200, 600, 1000, (R0 < 1).

1000

900

800

700
vaccinated number

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
susceptible number

Figure 3. The phase portraits of V vs. S for System (1), with initial conditions V (0) = 1, 100, 200, 600, 1000, (R0 < 1).

Example 2. For System (1), we choose the parameter values as follows: a = 100, d = 0.2, λ = 0.5, β = 0.4,
σ = 0.05, m = 5.8, ρ1 = 0.78, ρ2 = 0.93, γ = 0.02, α = 0.01, u1 = u2 = 0.5, b = 15.

System (1) has two equilibria; one is disease free and the other is endemic equilibrium
E∗ (30, 13.3, 255, 200). It can easily verified that R0 > 1. The phase diagram of System (1) at different
initial values I (0) = 1, 100, 200, 600, 1000, shown in Figure 4, which shows that all system responses
converge to point of E∗ at I = 13.3, S = 30. In Figure 5, we see that five orbits converge to the E∗ at
R = 255, S = 30, at different initial conditions R(0) = 1, 100, 200, 600, 1000. In Figure 6, there are five
solution curves corresponding to initial conditions with V (0) = 1, 100, 200, 600, 1000, which proves the
stability of the disease-free equilibrium point at V = 200, S = 30.
Symmetry 2020, 12, 1778 13 of 19

1200

1000

800
infected number

600

400

200

0
0 100 200 300 400 500
susceptible number

Figure 4. The phase portraits of I vs. S for System (1), with initial conditions I (0) = 1, 100, 200, 600,
1000, (R0 > 1).

1400

1200

1000
recovered number

800

600

400

200

0
0 100 200 300 400 500
susceptible number

Figure 5. The phase portraits of R vs. S for System (1), with initial conditions R(0) = 1, 100, 200, 600,
1000, (R0 > 1).
Symmetry 2020, 12, 1778 14 of 19

1000

900

800

700

recovered number
600

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 100 200 300 400 500
susceptible number

Figure 6. The phase portraits of V vs. S for System (1), with initial conditions V (0) = 1, 100, 200, 600,
1000, (R0 > 1).

4.2. Discussion
The authors in [27], applied the original method for proving the global stability of endemic equilibrium
of the system of three-dimensional and four-dimensional. At first, they define D = − A and E = (− A)−1 ,
to discuss the Volterra–Lyapunov stability of A3×3 . Hence, following the steps they concluded that A3×3 is
a Volterra–Lyapunov stable matrix:

1. Showing that E is stable, based on (L1).


2. To prove that D is Volterra–Lyapunov stable, they performed another process. Defined

e Ee ) T =
e Ee +(W 1
W Q > 0,
−detA
W
eDf +(W
eDf ) T = P,

where, Q2×2 is positive. Finally, by some algebraic and matrix manipulations, showed that P2×2 > 0.
To compare the results in this paper with the original method, the process of proving the stability of
matrix A4×4 is shown in Figure 7. According to our investigations on different systems, and as the
authors mentioned in Section 6 [27], the implementation of the method for the higher dimensions
systems (in the second step proposed by the authors) is very difficult and complex. Therefore, the use
of the modified method, can reduce the complexity of the calculations.

Based on Figure 7, by decreasing the size of the matrix A4×4 to A e3×3 , applying (L2), finally reducing
to 2 × 2 matrix, and using (L1), it can easily be proved that A is a Volterra–Lyapunov stable matrix.
Symmetry 2020, 12, 1778 15 of 19

𝐷3×3 > 0 det⁡(M) > 0


−𝐴4×4 > 0

̃2×2
𝑀=𝐷
𝑀11 > 0
is diagonal stable

Is 𝐴4×4
𝑀22 > 0
Volterra- 𝐷 = −𝐴̃3×3
Lyapunov
is diagonal stable
Stable?

det⁡(C) > 0

𝐶 = 𝐷̃
−1
2×2 𝐶11 > 0
is diagonal stable
stastable

𝐶22 > 0

det⁡(N) > 0
𝐻3×3 > 0

𝐻 = −𝐴̃
−1
3×3
̃2×2
𝑁=𝐻
𝑁11 > 0
is diagonal stable is diagonal stable

𝑁22 > 0

𝑃 = 𝐻̃
−1
2×2
det⁡(P) > 0
is diagonal stable

𝑃11 > 0

𝑃22 > 0
𝑃22 > 0
Figure 7. All steps of proving Volterra–Lyapunov stability of matrix A4×4 using the modified method.

5. Conclusions
We have investigated the global stability of the endemic equilibrium point of an infectious disease
model. In this paper, using the modified Volterra–Lyapunov matrices method, the stability of the model has
been analyzed. The main advantage of this modification is its application to various systems of epidemics,
infection diseases and even chaotic dynamical systems. This leads to better performance and reduces the
complexity of the proofs. The numerical results verify the effectiveness of the proposed scheme.
Symmetry 2020, 12, 1778 16 of 19

Author Contributions: M.M., M.R., A.C., and A.D., contributed equally to conceptualization, formal analysis and
writing—original draft preparation; S.S., N.S.K., H.S.N. contributed equally to methodology, software, and numerical
simulation. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this article.

Appendix A
Proof of det( H̃ ) > 0:
Let
λS∗
a11 a22 = d(d + β)2 (d + σ)2 (d + m + γ + bu2 + )
(1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )
λI
+(d + β)2 (d + σ)2 ( )(m + bu2 )
1 + αI
λI λS∗
+ ( d + β )2 ( d + σ )2 ( )(d + γ + ),
1 + αI (1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )

and

a12 a21 = d(d + β)2 (d + σ)2 (m + bu2 )


λI λS∗
−d(d + β)(d + σ)2 ( )(mρ1 + bu2 ρ2 + )
1 + αI (1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )
λI λS∗
− β(d + β)(d + σ)2 ( )( ).
1 + αI (1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )

Therefore, we have

1
det( H̃ ) = ( )2 ( a11 a22 − a12 a21 ) =
det(− A)
λS∗
d(d + β)2 (d + σ )2 (d + m + γ + bu2 + )
(1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )
λI λS∗
+(d + β)2 (d + σ)2 ( )(d + γ + )
1 + αI (1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )
λI λS∗
+ d(d + β)(d + σ)2 ( )(mρ1 + bu2 ρ2 + )
1 + αI (1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )
λI λS∗
+ β(d + β)(d + σ)2 ( )( ).
1 + αI (1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )

Hence, it is clear to see det( H̃ ) > 0. The proof is then complete.

Appendix B
Proof of det( H ) > 0:
The det( H ) is written as

1
( )3 [ a11 ( a22 a33 − a23 a32 ) − a21 ( a12 a33 − a13 a32 ) + a31 ( a12 a23 − a13 a22 )].
det(− A)
Symmetry 2020, 12, 1778 17 of 19

It is easy to see that a21 a13 a32 − a31 a13 a22 = 0, hence we show that

a11 a22 a33 − a11 a23 a32 − a21 a12 a33 + a31 a12 a23 > 0.

To this end, we have

a11 a22 a33 =


λI λS∗
d ( d + β )2 ( d + σ )2 ( d + )(d + m + γ + bu2 + )2
1 + αI (1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )
λI λI λS∗
+(d + β)2 (d + σ)2 ( )(d + )(d + γ + )
1 + αI 1 + αI (1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )
2λS∗
(d + γ + mρ1 + bu2 ρ2 + ),
(1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )

and
a11 a23 a32 =

β(d + σ)3 (d + β)(mρ1 + bu2 ρ2 )( 1+
λI λI λS
αI )( d + 1+αI )( d + m + γ + bu2 + (1+αI )(1+αI ∗ ) ),

and
λI λS∗
a21 a12 a33 = (d + σ )3 (d + β)2 (m + bu2 ρ2 )( )(d + m + γ + bu2 + )
1 + αI (1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )
λI λS∗
− d2 (d + σ)3 (d + β)( )(mρ1 + bu2 ρ2 + )
1 + αI (1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )
λS∗
(d + m + γ + bu2 + )
(1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )
λI λS∗ λS∗
− βd(d + σ)3 (d + β)2 ( )( )( d + m + γ + bu 2 + )
1 + αI (1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ ) (1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )
λI 2 2λS∗
+ (d + σ)3 (d + β)( ) (m + bu2 )(d + γ + mρ1 + bu2 ρ2 + )
1 + αI (1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )
λI 2 λS∗
− d(d + σ)3 (d + β)( ) (mρ1 + bu2 ρ2 + ))
1 + αI (1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )
2λS∗ λI 2
(d + γ + mρ1 + bu2 ρ2 + ) − β(d + σ)3 (d + β)( )
(1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ ) 1 + αI
λS∗ 2λS∗
( ∗
)(d + γ + mρ1 + bu2 ρ2 + ),
(1 + αI )(1 + αI ) (1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )

also

a31 a12 a23 =


λI 2
β(d + σ)3 (d + β)( ) (mρ1 + bu2 ρ2 )(m + bu2 )
1 + αI
λI 2 λS∗
− βd(d + σ)3 ( ) (mρ1 + bu2 ρ2 )(mρ1 + bu2 ρ2 + ),
1 + αI (1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )
λI 2 λS∗
− β2 ( d + σ )3 ( ) (mρ1 + bu2 ρ2 )( ).
1 + αI (1 + αI )(1 + αI ∗ )

Hence, it is clear to see det( H ) > 0. The proof is then complete.


Symmetry 2020, 12, 1778 18 of 19

References
1. Anderson, R.M.; May, R.M. Infectious Diseases of Humans: Dynamics and Control; Oxford University Press:
Oxford, UK, 1991.
2. Hethcote, H.W. The mathematics of infectious diseases. SIAM Rev. 2000, 42, 599–653. [CrossRef]
3. Korobeinikov, A. Global properties of basic virus dynamics models. Bull. Math. Biol. 2004, 66, 879–883. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
4. Abouelkheir, I.; Kihal, F.E.; Rachik, M.; Elmouki, I. Time needed to control an epidemic with restricted resources
in SIR model with short-term controlled population: A fixed point method for a free isoperimetric optimal
control problem. Math. Comput. Appl. 2018, 23, 64. [CrossRef]
5. Hethcote, H.W.; Van Den Driessche, P. Some epidemiological models with nonlinear incidence. J. Math. Biol.
1991, 29, 271–287. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Zhao, Y.; Li, M.; Yuan, S. Analysis of Transmission and Control of Tuberculosis in Mainland China, 2005–2016,
Based on the Age-Structure Mathematical Model. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 1192. [CrossRef]
7. Agaba, G.O.; Kyrychko, Y.N.; Blyuss, K.B. Time-delayed SIS epidemic model with population awareness.
Ecol. Complex. 2017, 31, 50–56. [CrossRef]
8. Sen, M.D.; Ibeas, A.; Quesada, S.A.; Nistal, R. On a SIR model in a patchy environment under constant and
feedback decentralized controls with asymmetric parameterizations. Symmetry 2019, 11, 430. [CrossRef]
9. Bairagi, N.; Adak, D. Role of precautionary measures in HIV epidemics: A mathematical assessment.
Int. J. Biomath. 2016, 9, 1650096. [CrossRef]
10. Sayan, M.; Hıncal, E.; Sanlıdag, T.; Kaymakamzade, B.; Saad, F.T.; Baba, I.A. Dynamics of HIV/AIDS in Turkey
from 1985 to 2016. Qual. Quant. 2018, 52, 711–723. [CrossRef]
11. Liu, X.; Takeuchi, Y.; Iwami, S. SVIR epidemic models with vaccination strategies. J. Theor. Biol. 2008, 253, 1–11.
[CrossRef]
12. Ma, Y.; Liu, J.B.; Li, H. Global dynamics of an SIQR model with vaccination and elimination hybrid strategies.
Mathematics 2018, 6, 328. [CrossRef]
13. Upadhyay, R.K.; Pal, A.K.; Kumari, S.; Roy, P. Dynamics of an SEIR epidemic model with nonlinear incidence
and treatment rates. Nonlinear Dyn. 2019, 96, 2351–2368. [CrossRef]
14. Mwasa, A.; Tchuenche, J.M. Mathematical analysis of a cholera model with public health interventions. BioSystems
2011, 105, 190–200. [CrossRef]
15. Wang, L.; Xu, R. Global stability of an SEIR epidemic model with vaccination. Int. J. Biomath. 2016, 9, 1650082.
[CrossRef]
16. Bentaleb, D.; Amine, S. Lyapunov function and global stability for a two-strain SEIR model with bilinear and
nonmonotone incidence. Int. J. Biomath. 2019, 12, 1950021. [CrossRef]
17. Chen, X.; Cao, J.; Park, J.H.; Qiu, J. Stability analysis and estimation of domain of attraction for the endemic
equilibrium of an SEIQ epidemic model. Nonlinear Dyn. 2017, 87, 975–985. [CrossRef]
18. Baba, I.A.; Hincal, E. Global stability analysis of two-strain epidemic model with bilinear and non-monotone
incidence rates. Eur. Phys. J. Plus 2017, 132, 208. [CrossRef]
19. Geng, Y.; Xu, J. Stability preserving NSFD scheme for a multi-group SVIR epidemic model. Math. Methods
Appl. Sci. 2017, 40, 4917–4927. [CrossRef]
20. Zaman, G.; Kang, Y.H.; Jung, I.H. Stability analysis and optimal vaccination of an SIR epidemic model. BioSystems
2008, 93, 240–249. [CrossRef]
21. Yi, L.; Liu, Y.; Yu, W. Combination of Improved OGY and Guiding Orbit Method for Chaos Control. J. Adv.
Comput. Intell. Intell. Inf. 2019, 23, 847–855. [CrossRef]
22. Wang, X.; Liu, X.; Xie, W.C.; Xu, W.; Xu, Y. Global stability and persistence of HIV models with switching
parameters and pulse control. Math. Comput. Simul. 2016, 123, 53–67. [CrossRef]
23. Hu, Z.; Ma, W.; Ruan, S. Analysis of SIR epidemic models with nonlinear incidence rate and treatment.
Math. Biosci. 2012, 238, 12–20. [CrossRef]
Symmetry 2020, 12, 1778 19 of 19

24. Misra, A.K.; Sharma, A.; Shukla, J.B. Stability analysis and optimal control of an epidemic model with awareness
programs by media. BioSystems 2015, 138, 53–62. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Thieme, H.R. Global stability of the endemic equilibrium in infinite dimension: Lyapunov functions and positive
operators. J. Differ. Equ. 2011, 250, 3772–3801. [CrossRef]
26. Kar, T.K.; Jana, S. A theoretical study on mathematical modelling of an infectious disease with application of
optimal control. BioSystems 2013, 111, 37–50. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Liao, S.; Wang, J. Global stability analysis of epidemiological models based on Volterra-Lyapunov stable matrices.
Chaos Solitons Fractals 2012, 45, 966–977. [CrossRef]
28. Parsaei, M.R.; Javidan, R.; Shayegh Kargar, N.; Saberi Nik, H. On the global stability of an epidemic model of
computer viruses. Theory Biosci. 2017, 136, 169–178. [CrossRef]
29. Zahedi, M.S.; Kargar, N.S. The Volterra-Lyapunov matrix theory for global stability analysis of a model of the
HIV/AIDS. Int. J. Biomath. 2016, 10, 1750002. [CrossRef]
30. Tian, J.P.; Wang, J. Global stability for cholera epidemic models. Math. Biosci. 2011, 232, 31–41. [CrossRef]
31. Driessche, V.D.; Watmough, J. Reproduction numbers and sub-threshold endemic equilibria for compartmental
models of disease transmission. Math. Biosci. 2002, 180, 29–48. [CrossRef]
32. Cross, G.W. Three types of matrix stability. Linear Algebra Appl. 1978, 20, 253–263. [CrossRef]
33. Rinaldi, F. Global stability results for epidemic models with latent period. IMA J. Math. Appl. Med. Biol. 1990, 7,
69–75. [CrossRef]
34. Redheffer, R. Volterra multipliers I. SIAM J. Algebr. Discret. Methods 1985, 6, 592–611. [CrossRef]
35. Redheffer, R. Volterra multipliers II. SIAM J. Algebr. Discret. Methods 1985, 6, 612–623. [CrossRef]

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.

c 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

You might also like