Abstract
In this paper, we investigate the dynamical behavior for a stochastic SIS epidemic model with isolation which is as an important strategy for the elimination of infectious diseases. It is assumed that the stochastic effects manifest themselves mainly as fluctuation in the transmission coefficient, the death rate and the proportional coefficient of the isolation of infective. It is shown that the extinction and persistence in the mean of the model are determined by a threshold value . That is, if , then disease dies out with probability one, and if , then the disease is stochastic persistent in the means with probability one. Furthermore, the existence of a unique stationary distribution is discussed, and the sufficient conditions are established by using the Lyapunov function method. Finally, some numerical examples are carried out to confirm the analytical results.
Keywords: Stochastic SIQS epidemic model, Threshold value, Persistence in the mean, Extinction, Stationary distribution
Highlights
-
•
A stochastic SIS epidemic model with isolation and multiple noises perturbation is proposed.
-
•
The criteria on the extinction and persistence in the mean with probability one are obtained.
-
•
The sufficient conditions for the existence of unique stationary distribution are established.
1. Introduction
As is well-known, in the theory of epidemiology the quarantine/isolation is an important strategy for the control and elimination of infectious diseases. Such as, in order to control SARS, the Chinese government is the first to use isolation. The various types of classical epidemic models with quarantine/isolation have been investigated in many articles. See, for example [[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]] and the references cited therein.
Particularly, in [1], Herbert et al. studied the following SIS epidemic model with isolation
| (1.1) |
where denotes the number of individuals who are susceptible to an infection, denotes the number of individuals who are infectious but not isolated, is the number of individuals who are isolated. is the recruitment rate of , is the transmission rate coefficient between compartment and , is natural death rate of , and , is the disease-related death rate of , is the proportional coefficient of isolated for the infection, and are the rates where individuals recover and return to from and , respectively. All parameters are usually assumed to be nonnegative.
In addition, we see that the quarantine/isolation strategies also are introduced and investigated in many practical epidemic model, such as the emerging infectious disease, two-strain avian influenza, childhood diseases, the Middle East respiratory syndrome, Ebola epidemics, Dengue epidemic, H1N1 flu epidemic, Hepatitis B and C, Tuberculosis, etc. See, for example [[16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]] and the references cited therein.
As a matter of fact, epidemic systems are inevitably subjected to environmental white noise. Therefore, the studies for the stochastic epidemic models have more practical significance. In recent years, the stochastic epidemic models with the quarantine and isolation have been investigated in articles [[29], [30], [31], [32]]. Particularly, in [29] Zhang et al. investigated the dynamics of the deterministic and stochastic SIQS epidemic model with an isolation and nonlinear incidence. The sufficient conditions on the extinction almost surely of the disease and the existence of stationary distribution of the model are established. Zhang et al. in [30] discussed the threshold of a stochastic SIQS epidemic model. The criteria on the extinction and permanence in the mean of global positive solutions with probability one are established. Besides, we also see that the stochastic persistence and the existence of stationary distribution for the various stochastic epidemic models and population models have been widely investigated. Some important recent works can been found in [[33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]] and the references cited therein.
Motivated by the works [[1], [2], [4], [5], [29], [30], [31], [32]], in this paper as an extension of model (1.1) we firstly assume that the disease-related death rates of isolation and no-isolation are different, respectively, denote by and . Then, we further define , and for the convenience. It is clear that . Next, we introduce randomness into model (1.1), by replacing the parameters , and with , , , and , where are independent standard Brownian motion defined on some probability space and parameter represents the intensity of . Thus, we establish the following stochastic SIS epidemic model with multi-parameters white noises perturbations and the isolation of infection.
| (1.2) |
Our purpose in this paper is to study the stochastic extinction and persistence, and the stationary distribution of model (1.2). We will establish a series of sufficient conditions to assure the extinction and persistence in the mean of the model with probability one, and the existence of unique stationary distribution for model (1.2) by using the theory of stochastic processes, the It’s formula and the Liapunov function method.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we introduce the preliminaries and some useful lemmas. In Section 3, the criteria on the extinction and persistence in the mean with probability one for model (1.2) are stated and proved. In Section 4, the criteria on the existence of a unique stationary distribution for model (1.2) are stated and proved. In Section 5, the numerical examples are carried out to illustrate the main theoretical results.
2. Preliminaries
We denote . For an integrable function defined on , denote .
As the preliminaries, we give the following lemmas.
Lemma 2.1
For deterministic model (1.1) , let . We have following conclusions.
(1) If , then model (1.1) has only a disease-free equilibrium , which is globally asymptotically stable.
(2) If , then model (1.1) also has an endemic equilibrium , which is globally asymptotically stable, where
The proof of Lemma 2.1 can be found in [1]. We hence omit it here.
Lemma 2.2
For any given initial value , model (1.2) has a unique global positive solution . That is, solution is defined for all and remains in with probability one.
Lemma 2.2 can be proved by using the similar method given in [29].
Lemma 2.3
Let be the solution of model (1.2) with initial value , then
(2.1) Moreover,
(2.2)
Proof
By model (1.2), we have
(2.3) where and . Solving this equation, we further obtain that
(2.4) where
Clearly, is a continuous local martingale with . Define
where , and . By (2.4) we have for all . It is clear that and are continuous adapted increasing processes on with . By Theorem 3.9 in [44], we obtain that Thus, conclusion (2.1) is true.
Set
Since the quadratic variations
by the large number theorem for martingales (See [[44], [45]]), we have
(2.5) Similarly, we also have
(2.6) Since
by (2.5), (2.6), we obtain . Since
form (2.4), it follows that conclusion (2.2) is true. This completes the proof. □
Lemma 2.4
Let be the solution of model (1.2) with initial value and . Then
(2.7) and
(2.8) where
(2.9) and
(2.10)
Proof
Using It’s formula, by (2.3) we have
(2.11) where
Integrating (2.11) from to , we further obtain
(2.12) Then, dividing on both sides (2.12), it follows that
where is given in (2.9). Thus, we finally obtain (2.8).
Taking the integration for the third equation of model (1.2) yields
(2.13) Dividing on both sides of Eq. (2.13), we have
(2.14) Integrating (2.3) from to , and then dividing on both sides, we have
Consequently,
(2.15) By substituting (2.14) into (2.15), we obtain
where is given in (2.10). Thus, we finally obtain (2.7). This completes the proof. □
Lemma 2.5
Assume that functions and satisfies If there are two constants and such that
for all , then
3. Persistence and extinction
Define
Theorem 3.1
Assume in model (1.2) . Let be the solution of system (1.2) with initial value . If , then , and . That is, model (1.2) is stochastic persistent in the mean with probability one.
Proof
Applying It’s formula, we have
(3.1) Integrating (3.1) from to and then dividing on both sides, we have
(3.2) From (2.7), we have
(3.3) From (2.8) in Lemma 2.4, when we have
(3.4) From Lemma 2.3, for solution of model (1.2), without loss of generality, there is a constant such that and for all . Thus, we further obtain from (3.4),
(3.5) On the other hand, from (2.2) in Lemma 2.3 we have that for any enough small there is a such that
(3.6) for all .
By substituting (2.14), (3.6) into (3.5), we obtain for all
(3.7) where
(3.8) Because of , substituting (3.7) into (3.3) we further have for all
Consequently, for all
(3.9) By the large number theorem for martingales, Lemmas 2.3 and 2.4, we have from (2.9), (2.10), (3.8)
and
Therefore, from (3.9) and the arbitrariness of we finally obtain
(3.10) where
(3.11) From the first equation of model (1.2), we easily obtain
(3.12) where . Since the quadratic variation
by the large number theorem for martingales we have . Therefore, by Lemma 2.3 and (3.12) we further have
From the third equation of model (1.2), we directly have
Hence, we further have
This shows that model (1.2) is persistent in the mean with probability one. This completes the proof. □
Remark 3.1
It is unfortunate that in Theorem 3.1 is assumed. From the proof of Theorem 3.1we see that this assumption only is used to deal with the term in (3.3). Therefore, an interesting open problem is to establish a similar result like Theorem 3.1for model (1.2)in .
In Theorem 3.1we only obtain the persistence in the mean of model (1.2). However, as a consequence of Theorem 3.1we have the following result on the permanence in the mean for the disease in model (1.2).
Corollary 3.1
Assume in model (1.2). Let be the solution of model (1.2) with initial value . If , and or and , then the disease is permanent in the mean with probability one.
In fact, when or and , from (3.11) we have , which is independent for . Therefore, by Theorem 3.1 , we obtain from (3.10) that
which implies that the disease is permanent in the mean with probability one.
Remark 3.2
From the above Corollary 3.1, we can propose an important open problem. That is, when , and or , whether we can establish the permanence in the mean of the disease for model (1.2). An example will be given in Section 5to show that the result can hold.
Theorem 3.2
Assume in model (1.2). Let be the solution of system (1.2) with initial value . If , then we have
Proof
Applying It’s formula, directly computing, we have
(3.13) Integrating (3.13) and then dividing yields
From (2.14), we further have
where
By the large number theorem for martingales and Lemma 2.3, we have Therefore, by Lemma 2.5 we finally can obtain that
Furthermore, from (2.14) we can obtain
and from (2.7) we further obtain
This completes the proof. □
Remark 3.3
Particularly, when and , then the stochastic model (1.2)degenerates into the deterministic model (1.1). We also have . From Theorem 3.2, when we can obtain that for any solution of model (1.1)with initial value ,
Therefore, Theorem 3.2can be regarded as an extension of the conclusion (2) of Lemma 2.1for the deterministic model (1.1)into the corresponding stochastic model (1.2).
Remark 3.4
It is a pity that in Theorem 3.2 is assumed. Therefore, an interesting open problem is to establish a similar result for model (1.2)in .
Theorem 3.3
Let be the solution of model (1.2) with initial value . Suppose that one of the following two conditions holds:
Then the disease almost surely exponentially dies out. That is
(3.14) and
(3.15) Furthermore, we also have that and for some constant . That is, in the mean almost surely converges to and almost surely exponentially converges to zero.
Proof
Since for any , , from (3.2) we have
(3.16) If condition holds, then from (2.7), (3.16) we have
Therefore,
where
By the large number theorem for martingales, Lemmas 2.3 and 2.4, we have Therefore, we finally obtain
If condition holds, then from (3.2) we have
Thus, we also have
From (3.14), (3.15), there is a constant such that for almost all there exists a , when one has . Without loss of generality, we assume that for all . It follows that from the third equation of model (1.2)
Hence,
(3.17) where
It is clear that
Consider , choose the constants and such that
Since , without loss of generality, we assume for all . Let , then we have
By the large number theorem for martingales, we have . For any small enough , we can obtain
Hence, . It follows that . Therefore, from (3.17) we finally have
From the first equation of model (1.2) we have
By Lemma 2.3, the large number theorem of martingales, and , we have , , , , and . Therefore, . This completes the proof. □
Remark 3.5
It is easy to see that when the condition (A) holds, then we have . Therefore, we can propose the following open problem. That is, when , and , whether we also can obtain the extinction of the disease with probability one for model (1.2). An example is given in Section 5to show that the result can hold.
Remark 3.6
Comparing with the conclusion (1) of Lemma 2.1, we easily see that Theorem 3.3can be regarded as an extension of conclusion (1) of Lemma 2.1for the deterministic model (1.1)into the corresponding stochastic model (1.2).
In Theorem 3.3, when , then condition does not hold, and condition degenerates into
(3.18) Therefore, as a consequence of Theorem 3.3, we have the following corollary.
Corollary 3.2
Assume that in model (1.2) . Let be the solution of model (1.2) with initial value . If condition (3.18) holds, then in the mean almost surely converges to , and almost surely exponentially converge to zero.
4. Stationary distribution
In this section, we study the existence of unique stationary distribution of model (1.2). Before giving the main results, we introduce the following lemma.
Let be a regular temporally homogeneous Markov process in described by the stochastic differential equation
| (4.1) |
where , and are independent standard Brownian motions defined on some probability space . The diffusion matrix for Eq. (4.1) is defined as follows
Lemma 4.1
(See [ [44], [45]]) Assume that there exists a bounded domain with regular boundary, satisfying the following properties.
(i) In the domain and some neighborhood thereof, the smallest eigenvalue of the diffusion matrix is bounded away from zero.
(ii) If , the mean time at which a path issuing from reaches the set is finite, and for every compact subset .
Then, the Markov process of Eq. (4.1) has a stationary distribution with density in such that for any Borel set , and
where is a function integrable with respect to the measure .
Remark 4.1
To verify condition (i), it is sufficient to show that there is a positive number such that for all and (See [[47], [48]]). To validate condition (ii), it is sufficient to show that there is a nonnegative -function and a bounded domain with regular boundary such that for some constant one has for all (See [49]).
When in model (1.2)there is not any stochastic perturbation, that is , then model (1.2)degenerates into the following deterministic model
(4.2) Let . We can prove that when then model (4.2)has a unique endemic equilibrium , where
Define the constants
where
Now, on the existence and uniqueness of stationary distribution for model (1.2)we have the following result.
Theorem 4.1
Assume that . If the conditions
(4.3) are satisfied, then model (1.2) has a unique stationary distribution and ergodic property.
Proof
Define the Lyapunov function as follows.
where
By computing, we have
and
Therefore, we have
If (4.3) holds, then the episode
lie in the positive zone of . Hence, there exists a constant and a compact set such that for any
Thus, we finally have
From Remark 4.1, this shows that condition (ii) in Lemma 4.1 holds.
Next, we show that condition (i) holds in Lemma 4.1. The diffusion matrix associated to model (1.2) is
(4.4) where . Choose . We have . For any and , from (4.4) we have
where . From Remark 4.1 this shows that condition (i) in Lemma 4.1 is verified. Therefore, model (1.2) has a unique stationary distribution and the ergodic property. This completes the proof. □
Remark 4.2
It is clear that there exists a constant such that when the condition (4.3)holds. This implies that as long as then the conclusions of Theorem 4.1hold when the stochastic perturbations in model (1.2)are small enough. However, the condition (4.3)are also very strong. We easily see that along with the increase of the condition (4.3)will not satisfy. Thus, Theorem 4.1will be not applicable.
In the following, we consider a special case of model (1.2): . Here, model (1.2)degenerates into the following form
(4.5) We will give a new conclusion on the existence of unique stationary distribution for model (4.5). Define the constant
Theorem 4.2
Assume that . Then model (4.5) has a unique stationary distribution and the ergodic property.
Proof
Let a -function in the following form
where
whit is a constant satisfying , constant will be determined later, and , . It is easy to see that
where with integer . At the same time, is a continuous function. Hence, has a minimum value in the interior of . Then, we define a nonnegative -function in the following form
By the It’s formula, for any solution of model (1.2) we have
and
where and
Therefore, the differential operator acting on the yields
where .
Now, we construct a compact subset such that the condition (ii) in Lemma 4.1 holds. Define the bounded closed set
where are small enough positive constants, which will be determined later.
For convenience, we divide into six domains.
We will prove that on , which is equivalent to show it on the above six domains.
Case 1. If , we can obtain
where
We choose a constant small enough such that , then it follows that
(4.6) Case 2. If , we can obtain
where
Choose constants large enough and small enough such that
then it follows that
(4.7) Case 3. If , we can obtain
Choose a constant small enough such that , then it follow that
(4.8) Case 4. If , we can obtain
Choose a constant small enough such that , then we have
(4.9) Case 5. If , we can obtain
Choose a constant small enough such that , then we have
(4.10) Case 6. If , we can obtain
Choose a constant small enough such that , then we get
(4.11) Finally, from (4.6), (4.7), (4.8), (4.9), (4.10), (4.11) we obtain
Therefore, by Remark 4.1 the condition (ii) in Lemma 4.1 is satisfied.
Next, we show that condition (i) holds in Lemma 4.1. In fact, the diffusion matrix associated to model (1.2) is
where . It is easily proved that by Remark 4.1 condition (i) in Lemma 4.1 hold. Thus, we finally obtain that model (1.2) has a unique stationary distribution and is ergodic. This completes the proof. □
Remark 4.3
When or in model (1.2), then whether model (1.2)also is ergodic and has a unique stationary distribution still is an interesting open problem. However, the numerical example given in below Section 5shows that model (1.2)when or may have not a stationary distribution.
5. Numerical examples
In this section, we further analyze the stochastic model (1.2) by means of the numerical examples.
Example 5.1
In model (1.2)we take the parameters , , , , , , , , , , , and . We obtain by computing , , . Therefore, Theorem 3.3is not applicable. However, from the numerical simulations given in Fig. 1, we can see that the infective and isolation in model (1.2)are extinct with probability one, and the susceptible in model (1.2)is permanent in the mean with probability one.
Fig. 1.
The numerical simulation of solution with initial value in Example 5.1. This shows that is permanent in the mean, and are extinct with probability one.
Example 5.2
In model (1.2), we take the parameters , , , , , , , , , , , and . We obtain . From the numerical simulations given in Fig. 2, we can see that the infective , isolation and susceptible in model (1.2)are not only persistent in the mean with probability one, but also permanent in the mean with probability one.
Fig. 2.
The numerical simulation of solution with initial value in Example 5.2. This shows that , and are permanent in the mean.
Example 5.3
In model (1.2), we take the parameters . We obtain the threshold value and the endemic equilibrium of deterministic model (4.2)is . The conditions in Theorem 4.1are checked as follows: , , , , and . Hence, the condition (4.3)does not hold. This shows that Theorem 4.1is not applicable. But, from the numerical simulations given in Fig. 3, we can see that the solution of model (1.2)still has a unique stationary distribution.
Fig. 3.
The histogram of solution model (1.2) with initial value in Example 5.3. This shows that there exists a unique stationary distribution.
Example 5.4
In model (1.2), we take the parameters , , , , , , , , , , , and . We obtain , . This shows that Theorem 4.2is not applicable. But, from the numerical simulations given in Fig. 4, we can see that the solutions of model (1.2) may not exist the stationary distribution.
Fig. 4.
The histogram of solution model (1.2) with initial value in Example 5.4. This shows that there is not any stationary distribution.
6. Conclusion
In this paper, we have investigated the global dynamics for a stochastic SIS epidemic model with isolation of the infection. The stochastic effects are assumed as the fluctuations in the transmission coefficient, disease-related rate and the proportional coefficient of isolated of infection. The research given in this paper shows that the extinction and persistence in the mean of the model are determined by a threshold value . Concretely, we have proved that if then disease dies out with probability one (Theorem 3.3), if , then the model is stochastic persistent or permanent in the means with probability one (Theorem 3.1, Theorem 3.2). Furthermore, we also established the sufficient conditions for the existence of a unique stationary distribution (Theorem 4.1, Theorem 4.2) by constructing the new suitable Lyapunov function. Particularly, we also see that the researches given in this paper extend the results on the global stability of the disease-free and endemic equilibria for the corresponding deterministic model given in Lemma 2.1.
We see that, in order to deal with the isolation term for the stochastic SIS epidemic model, some novel interesting research techniques are proposed. They are presented in Lemma 2.4 and the proofs of Theorem 3.1, Theorem 3.2, Theorem 3.3 and 4.2. In addition, we also see that there are still many problems for the considered model. These problems have been shown in Remark 3.1, Remark 3.2, Remark 3.4, Remark 3.5, Remark 4.3, which are interesting and valuable to be further investigated in the future.
Acknowledgment
This research is supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Xinjiang (Grant Nos. 2016D03022).
References
- 1.Herbert H., Ma Z., Liao S. Effects of quarantine in six endemic models for infectious diseases. Math. Biosci. 2002;180:141–160. doi: 10.1016/s0025-5564(02)00111-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Podder C.N., Gumel A.B., Bowman C.S., Mcleod R.G. Mathematical study of the impact of quarantine, isolation and vaccination in curtailing an epidemic. J. Biol. Syst. 2007;15:185–202. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Arino J., Jordan R., van den Driessche P. Quarantine in a multi-species epidemic model with spatial dynamics. Math. Biosci. 2007;206:46–60. doi: 10.1016/j.mbs.2005.09.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Safi M.A., Gumel A.B. Global asymptotic dynamics of a model for quarantine and isolation. Disc. Cont. Dyn. Syst. Ser. B. 2010;14:209–231. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Sun C., Yang W. Global results for an SIRS model with vaccination and isolation. Nonlinear Anal.: RWA. 2010;11:4223–4237. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Safi M.A., Gumel A.B. Mathematical analysis of a disease transmission model with quarantine, isolation and imperfect vaccine. Comp. Math. Appl. 2011;61:3044–3070. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Safi M.A., Gumel A.B. The effect of incidence function on the dynamics of a qrarantine/isolation model with time delay. Nonlinear Anal.: RWA. 2011;12:215–235. doi: 10.1016/j.nonrwa.2010.06.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Safi M.A., Gumel A.B. Qualitative study of a quarantine/isolation model with multiple disease stages. Appl. Math. Comput. 2011;218:1941–1961. doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2011.07.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Safi M.A., Imran M., Gumel A.B. Threshold dynamics of a non-autonomous SEIRS model with quarantine and isolation. Theory Biosci. 2012;131:19–30. doi: 10.1007/s12064-011-0148-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Zheng L., Yang X., Zhang L. On global stability analysis for SEIRS model in epidemiology with nonlinear incidence rate function. Inter. J. Biomath. 2017;10:1750019. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Sahu G.P., Dhar J. Dynamics of an SEOIHRS epidemic model with media coverage, quarantine and isolation in a community with pre-existing immunity. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2015;421:1651–1672. doi: 10.1016/j.jmaa.2014.08.019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Silva C.M. A nonautonomous epidemic model with general incidence and isolation. Math. Meth. Appl. Sci. 2014;37:1974–1991. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Grigorieva E.V., Khailov E.N., Korobeinikov A. Optimal control for a SIR epidemic model with nonlinear incidence rate. Math. Model. Nat. Phenom. 2016;11:89–104. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Hansen E., Day T. Optimal control of epidemics with limited resources. J. Math. Biol. 2011;62:423–451. doi: 10.1007/s00285-010-0341-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Sang Z., Qiu Z., Yan X., Zou Y. Assessing the effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions on containing an emerging disease. Math. Biosci. Engin. 2012;9:147–164. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2012.9.147. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Wu L., Feng Z. Homoclinic bifurcation in a SIQR model for childhood diseases. J. Diff. Equations. 2000;168:150–167. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Nuno M., Feng Z., Martcheva M., Castillo-Chavez C. Dynamics of two-strain influenza with isolation and partial cross-immunity. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 2005;65:964–982. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Agusto F.B. Optimal isolation control strategies and cost-effectiveness analysis of a two-strain avian influenza model. Biosystems. 2013;113:155–164. doi: 10.1016/j.biosystems.2013.06.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Zhou Y., Wu J., Wu M. Optimal isolation strategies of emerging infectious diseases with limited resources. Math. Biosci. Engin. 2013;10:1691–1701. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2013.10.1691. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Adams B. Household demographic determinants of Ebola epidemic risk. J. Theor. Biol. 2016;392:99–106. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2015.11.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Lee J., Chowell G., Jung E. A dynamic compartmental model for the Middle East respiratory syndrome outbreak in the Republic of Korea: A retrospective analysis on control interventions and superspreading events. J. Theor. Biol. 2016;408:118–126. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2016.08.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Khan T., Zaman G., Chohan M.I. The transmission dynamic and optimal control of acute and chronic hepatitis B. J. Biol. Dynam. 2016;11:172–189. doi: 10.1080/17513758.2016.1256441. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Chong N.S., Tchuenche J.M., Smith R.J. A mathematical model of avian influenza with half-saturated incidence. Theory Biosci. 2014;133:23–38. doi: 10.1007/s12064-013-0183-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Zhang J., Feng G. Global stability for a tuberculosis model with isolation and incomplete treatment. Comp. Appl. Math. 2015;34:1237–1249. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Upadhyay R.K., Roy P. Deciphering dynamics of recent epidemic spread and outbreak in West Africa: The case of Ebola virus. Inter. J. Bifur. Chaos. 2016;26:1630024. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Webb G.F., Browne C.J. A model of the Ebola epidemic in West Africa incorporating age of infection. J. Biol. Dynam. 2016;10:18–30. doi: 10.1080/17513758.2015.1090632. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Imran M., Hassan M., Dur-E-Ahmad M., Khan A. A comparison of a deterministic and stochastic model for Hepatitis C with an isolation stage. J. Biol. Dynam. 2013;7:276–301. doi: 10.1080/17513758.2013.859856. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Yan X., Zou Y. Optimal and sub-optimal quarantine and isolation control in SARS epidemics. Math. Comp. Modelling. 2008;47:235–245. doi: 10.1016/j.mcm.2007.04.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Zhang X., Huo H., Xiang H., Meng X. Dynamics of the deterministic and stochastic SIQS epidemic model with non-linear incidence. Appl. Math. Comput. 2014;243:546–558. [Google Scholar]
- 30.Zhang X., Huo H., Xiang H., Shi Q., Li D. The threshold of a stochastic SIQS epidemic model. Physica A. 2017;482:362–374. [Google Scholar]
- 31.Wei F., Chen F. Stochastic permanence of an SIQS epidemic model with saturated incidence and independent random perturbations. Physica A. 2016;453:99–107. [Google Scholar]
- 32.Pan Y., Han Y., Li W. The threshold of a stochastic SIQS epidemic model. Adv. Diff. Equat. 2014;2014:320. [Google Scholar]
- 33.Yu J., Liu M. Stationary distribution and ergodicity of a stochastic food chian model with levy jumps. Physica A. 2017;482:14–28. [Google Scholar]
- 34.Zhu Y., Liu M. Permanence and extinction in a stochastic service-resource mutualism model. Appl. Math. Letters. 2017;69:1–7. [Google Scholar]
- 35.Liu M., Fan M. Stability in distribution of a three-species stochastic cascade predator–prey system with time delays. IMA J. Appl. Math. 2017;82:396–423. [Google Scholar]
- 36.Liu M., Fan M. Permanence of stochastic Lotka–Volterra systems. J. Nonl. Sci. 2017;27:425–452. [Google Scholar]
- 37.Li D., Cui J., Liu M., Liu S. The evolutionary dynamics of stochastic epidemic model with nonlinear incidence rate. Bull. Math. Biol. 2015;77:1705–1743. doi: 10.1007/s11538-015-0101-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Liu Q., Jiang D., Hayat T., Ahmad B. Periodic solution and stationary distribution of stochastic SIR epidemic models with higher order perturbation. Physica A. 2017;482:209–217. [Google Scholar]
- 39.Rifhat R., Wang L., Teng Z. Dynamics for a class of stochastic SIS epidemic models with nonliear incidence and periodic coefficients. Physica A. 2017;481:176–190. [Google Scholar]
- 40.Lahrouz A., Settati A., Akharif A. Effects of stochastic perturbation on the SIS epidemic system. J. Math. Biol. 2017;74:469–498. doi: 10.1007/s00285-016-1033-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Liu Q., Jiang D., Shi N. Threshold behavior in a stochastic SIQR epidemic model with standard incidence and regime switching. Appl. Math. Comput. 2018;316:310–325. [Google Scholar]
- 42.Liu Q., Jiang D. Stationary distribution and extinction of a stochastic SIR model with nonlinear perturbation. Appl. Math. Letters. 2017;73:8–15. [Google Scholar]
- 43.Du N.H., Nhu N.N. Permanence and extinction of certain stochastic SIR models perturbed by a complex type of noises. Appl. Math. Letters. 2017;64:223–230. [Google Scholar]
- 44.Mao X. Stochastic Differential Equations and Applications. 2nd ed. Horwood; Chichester, UK: 2008. [Google Scholar]
- 45.Hasminskii R.Z. Stochastic Stability of Differential Equations, Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands. 1980. [Google Scholar]
- 46.Liu M., Wang K., Wu Q. Survival analysis of stochastic competitive models in a polluted environment and stochastic competitive exclusion principle. Bull. Math. Biol. 2011;73:1969–2012. doi: 10.1007/s11538-010-9569-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Gard T. Introduction to Stochastic Differential Equations, New York. 1988. [Google Scholar]
- 48.Strang G. Linear Algebra and Its Applications. Thomson Learning Inc; 1988. [Google Scholar]
- 49.Zhu C., Yin G. Asymptotic properties of hybrid diffusion systems. SIAM J. Control Optim. 2007;46:1155–1179. [Google Scholar]




