Skip to main content
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2021 Oct 29;136(10):1090. doi: 10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-02030-6

COVID-19 and dengue co-infection in Brazil: optimal control and cost-effectiveness analysis

A Omame 1,, H Rwezaura 2, M L Diagne 3, S C Inyama 1, J M Tchuenche 4,5
PMCID: PMC8554757  PMID: 34729293

Abstract

A mathematical model for the co-interaction of COVID-19 and dengue transmission dynamics is formulated and analyzed. The sub-models are shown to be locally asymptotically stable when the respective reproduction numbers are below unity. Using available data sets, the model is fitted to the cumulative confirmed daily COVID-19 cases and deaths for Brazil (a country with high co-endemicity of both diseases) from February 1, 2021 to September 20, 2021. The fitting was done using the fmincon function in the Optimization Toolbox of MATLAB. Parameters denoting the COVID-19 contact rate, death rate and loss of infection acquired immunity to COVID-19 were estimated using the two data sets. The model is then extended to include optimal control strategies. The appropriate conditions for the existence of optimal control and the optimality system for the co-infection model are established using the Pontryagin’s Principle. Different control strategies and their cost-effectiveness analyses were considered and simulated for the model, which include: controls against incident dengue and COVID-19 infections, control against co-infection with a second disease and treatment controls for both dengue and COVID-19. Highlights of the simulation results show that: (1) dengue prevention strategy could avert as much as 870,000 new COVID-19 infections; (2) dengue only control strategy or COVID-19 only control strategy significantly reduces new co-infection cases; (3) the strategy implementing control against incident dengue infection is the most cost-effective in controlling dengue and COVID-19 co-infections.

Introduction

Dengue and Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may share clinical and laboratory features [1]. Since 2018, increase in the number of dengue cases in at risk regions to arbovirus outbreaks such as the Reunion Island has been highlighted [1]. The 2019 Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), now a global pandemic, is a respiratory disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARSCoV- 2 [2]. In tropical and sub-tropical areas of the world where arboviruses (viral or bacterial infections) and COVID-19 may coexist due to the geographical overlap of the two diseases, clinical diagnosis is difficult, and patients should be tested for both viruses. Verduyn et al.  [1] reported the first confirmed case of co-infection of dengue fever and COVID-19 in a French overseas department located in the Indian Ocean. A comprehensive review of the data on plausible co-infection in a single individuals of dengue and COVID-19 has been reported [3]. Co-epidemics can create a high burden on communities and the health system in the affected areas [4]. Although COVID-19 and dengue are caused by different viruses, the symptomatic appearance of both infections is quite identical and may be hard to distinguish [5]. These similarity of dengue and COVID-19 symptoms could lead to misdiagnosis of one disease for the other and therefore minimizing the extend of co-infection of the two diseases [6].

Due to clinical characteristics and underlying co-morbidities similar to COVID-19 [2, 4, 7], Saddique et al. [5] reported that co-infection of COVID-19 and dengue is an emerging public health concern in dengue endemic countries and investigated what role dengue co-infection plays on the severity and outcome of COVID-19 patients [2]. Co-infection of COVID-19 with vector-borne disease such as malaria is a public health threat [8]. In fact, co-infection of COVID-19 and dengue has already been reported from Asian countries and the Americas, see [911] and the references therein. These studies highlight high mortality rate in dengue and COVID-19 co-infected patients that may lead to adverse consequences [9]. Dengue viruses circulate throughout the year in Maldives, a dengue holoendemic country [12]. Because clinical and epidemiological criteria may not be sufficient to differentiate COVID-19 and dengue infection, several co-infected patients may be misdiagnosed [13], which could potentially lead to minimizing the extend of the co-infection. Paradoxically, there has been a decrease in dengue cases in Guangzhou (China), mainly attributable to the impact of COVID-19 lockdown in early 2020 [14]. However, the emergence of COVID-19 and dengue co-infection warrants further investigations, at least at the population level to understand the potential of COVID-19 and dengue outbreaks, which could be exacerbated during the post-monsoon months with elevated dengue infections. Also, the dynamics and outcome of a disease may be altered when co-infection with another disease is present [12]. However, non-severe dengue may be more symptomatic than COVID-19 in a co-epidemic dengue endemic settings [7].

Modeling is often the timely option for informing quick decision-making, and to this effect, mathematical modeling for public health purposes has become more refined and used to provide framework for understanding the dynamics of infectious diseases, especially when direct experiments are not possible [8, 1525]. More recently, Rehman et al. [26] studied a fractional order model for COVID-19, comparing the behavior of the model using different derivatives (Caputo, Caputo–Fabrizio and Atangana–Baleanu) and showed that Caputo presented better results in the form of stability as compared to the other two operators. We formulate and analyze a robust mathematical model for the co-infection of COVID-19 and dengue transmission dynamics, with optimal control and cost-effectiveness analyses. Using available data sets, the proposed model is fitted to the cumulative confirmed daily COVID-19 cases and deaths for Brazil (a country with high co-endemicity of both diseases), and some important parameters are also estimated.

The organization of the rest of the paper is as follows. The proposed co-dynamic model is formulated in Sect. 2 and theoretically analyzed in Sect. 3. By applying Pontryagin’s maximum principle, optimal control of the model to mitigate the spread of both diseases and cost-effectiveness of the interventions is presented in Sect. 5. Numerical simulations performed to support theoretical results and cost-effectiveness analysis are presented in Sect. 6. The conclusion is provided in Sect. 7.

The model

Consider a homogeneously mixed population, i.e., individuals in the population have equal probability of contact with each other. Using a deterministic compartmental modeling approach to describe the disease transmission dynamics, at any time t, the total population NH is subdivided into several epidemiological states depending on individuals health status: susceptible humans SH, infectious individuals with dengue IHD, individuals who have recovered from dengue RHD, infectious individuals with COVID-19 IHC, individuals who have recovered from COVID-19 RHD, infectious individuals with co-infected with dengue and COVID-19 IDC.

The mosquito vector population is given by NV comprises the susceptible vectors SV, and the infectious vectors with dengue IVD. All the model parameters and their description are provided in 1, while the flows between all the model variables (compartments) are shown in Fig. 1.

Table 1.

Description of the variables and parameters

Variable Interpretation
SH Susceptible humans
IHD Infectious individuals with dengue
RHD Individuals who have recovered from dengue
IHC Infectious individuals with COVID-19
RHD Individuals who have recovered from COVID-19
IDC Infectious individuals with co-infected with dengue and COVID-19
SV Susceptible vectors
IVD Infectious vectors with dengue
Parameter Interpretation Value References
ωH Human recruitment rate 212,559,40975.88×365 [27]
ωD Vector recruitment rate 20,000 [28]
ϱH Human natural death rate 175.88×365 [27]
ηHD Loss of infection acquired immunity to dengue 0.026 [29]
ΛVD Effective contact rate for vector to human transmission of dengue 0.43 [28]
ΛHD Effective contact rate for human to vector transmission of dengue 0.60 [28]
αHD Dengue recovery rate 0.15 [29]
ΛHC Effective contact rate for human to human transmission of COVID-19 0.1958 Fitted
ηHC Loss of infection acquired immunity to COVID-19 0.00000043117 Fitted
φHC COVID-19-induced death rate 0.0060 Fitted
αHC COVID-19 recovery rate 0.1853 Fitted
ϑ1 Modification parameter accounting for susceptibility of dengue-infected
Individuals to COVID-19 1 Assumed
ϑ2 Modification parameter accounting for susceptibility of COVID-19-infected
Individuals to dengue 1 Assumed
φHD Dengue-induced death rate 0.001 [28]
ϱV Vector removal rate 121 [28]

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Compartment diagram of the human component of the model

The model has the following assumptions:

  • i.

    individuals infected with COVID-19 infection are susceptible to infection with dengue and vice versa.

  • ii.

    co-infected infected individuals can transmit either COVID-19 or dengue but not the mixed infections at the same time,

  • iii.

    co-infected infected individuals can recover either from COVID-19 or dengue but not from the mixed infections at the same time,

  • iv.

    Rate of transmissibility for singly infected and co-infected individuals are assumed same.

Individuals are recruited into the population through birth or immigration at the rate ΩH. Susceptible humans, SH acquire COVID-19, following effective contacts with either singly or co-infected individuals with COVID-19 at the rate:

λC=ΛHC(IHC+IDC)NH. 1

Similarly, the population SH is reduced due to infection with dengue at the rate:

λD=ΛVDIVDNH. 2

The parameters ΛHC and ΛVD denote the effective contact rate for the acquisition of COVID-19 and dengue, respectively. The variables in the expressions are defined in Table 1.

Following from the assumptions above, the COVID-19-dengue co-infection model is given by the following system of equations (the flow diagram of the model is presented in Fig. 1, and related parameters of the model are given in Table 1.

From Fig. 1, we establish the following system of nonlinear ordinary differential equation describing the dynamics of dengue and COVID-19 co-infection.

dSHdt=ωH-ΛVDIVDNH+ΛHC(IHC+IDC)NHSH-ϱHSH+ηHDRHD+ηHCRHC,dIHDdt=ΛVDIVDNH(SH+RHC)-(αHD+ϱH+φHD)IHD-ϑ1ΛHC(IHC+IDC)NHIHD+αHCIDC,dRHDdt=αHDIHD-ϱHRHD-ηHDRHD-ΛHC(IHC+IDC)NHRHD,dIHCdt=ΛHC(IHC+IDC)NH(SH+RHD)-(αHC+ϱH+φHC)IHC-ϑ2ΛVDIVDNHIHC+αHDIDC,dRHCdt=αHCIHC-ϱHRHC-ηHCRHC-ΛVDIVDNHRHC,dIDCdt=ϑ1ΛHC(IHC+IDC)NHIHD+ϑ2ΛVDIVDNHIHC-(ϱH+φHD+φHC+αHD+αHC)IDC,dSVDdt=ωD-ΛHD(IHD+IDC)NHSVD-ϱVSVD,dIVDdt=ΛHD(IHD+IDC)NHSVD-ϱVIVD, 3

with initial conditions

SH(0)0,IHD(0)0,RHD(0)0,IHC(0)0,RHC(0)0,IDC(0)0,SVD(0)0,IVD(0)0. 4

Model analysis

The main focus of our study is on investigating the impact of optimal control on dengue-COCIVD-19 co-dynamics. For this reason, the basic analysis of the dengue-only and COVID-19-only sub-models will focus on deriving the infection threshold parameter that governs the stability of the model equilibria.

Invariant regions

Since the above model monitors human and mosquito populations, it is assumed that all the state variables and parameters of the model are non-negative for all time t0. The COVID-19 and dengue transmission model (3) will therefore be analyzed in a feasible region Ω.

Lemma 3.1

Solutions of model system (3) are contained in the region Ω=ΩH×ΩV.

Proof

Let

NH=SH+IHD+RHD+IHC+RHC+IDC,

and

NV=SVD+IVD.

Assume that (SH(t),IHD(t),RHD(t),IHC(t),RHC(t),IDC(t))R+6 is a solution of the system with non-negative initial conditions. Then, by summing all the equations of the human-only component of the system (3) we have

NH˙=ωH-ϱHNH-φHDIHD-φHCIHC-(φHC+φHD)IDCωH-ϱHNH,t0.

Thus, on applying Birkhoff and Rota’s Theorem on differential inequality [30], as t we obtain 0NHωHϱH. Therefore, all feasible solutions of the human-only component of the system (3) enters the region

ΩH=(SH,IHD,RHD,IHC,RHC,IDC)R+6:N(t)ωHϱH.

Similarly, it can be shown that

ΩV=(SVD,IVD)R+2:N(t)ωDϱV.

Thus, for t0, all possible solutions of (3) will enter the region Ω=ΩH×ΩV, which is positively invariant under the flow induced by the model system (3). Also, using the theory of permanence, it can be shown that all solutions on the boundary of Ω eventually enter the interior of Ω [31], and the usual existence, uniqueness and continuation results hold. Hence, the model system (3) is well-posed mathematically and epidemiologically, and it is sufficient to consider the dynamics of the flow generated by the model (3) in Ω. Note that the proof of the boundedness of solutions uses the Gronwall’s inequality, see [32].

Analysis of the model without controls

Before analyzing the dynamics of the full model (3), we first analyze the two sub-models namely: COVID-19-only and dengue-only models.

COVID-19-only model

The COVID-19-only model is obtained by setting IHD=RHD=IDC=SVD=IVD=0 in (3). Thus, we have,

dSHdt=ωH-ΛHCIHCNHSH-ϱHSH+ηHCRHC,dIHCdt=ΛHCIHCNHSH-(αHC+ϱH+φHC)IHC,dRHCdt=αHCIHC-ϱHRHC-ηHCRHC, 5

where, now, the total human population is given by, NH=SH+IHC+RHC. By adding up all the equations of the system (5), we have

NH˙=ωH-ϱHNH-φHCIHCωH-ϱHNH.

Consider the region

ΩHC=(SH,IHC,RHC):N(t)ωHϱH.

Note that the region ΩHC is positively invariant [33], and it is sufficient to consider the dynamics of the dengue only sub-model (5) in ΩHC.

The COVID-19-only model (5) has a DFE given by,

ϵHC0=(SH,IHC,RHC)=ωHϱH,0,0.

One measure of the potential for disease spread in a population is the threshold parameter know as the reproduction number, R0C, which governs the local stability of the DFE of the COVID-19-only model. Using the approach in [34], the associated next generation matrices are given by

F=ΛHC000,

and

V=αHC+ϱH+φHC0-αHCϱH+ηHC.

The associated basic reproduction number R0C is given by

R0C=ρ(FV-1)=ΛHCαHC+ϱH+φHC, 6

and the following result holds.

Lemma 3.2

The DFE of the COVID-19-only model (5) is locally asymptotically stable if R0C<1 and unstable if R0C>1.

Proof

The stability of the DFE ϵHC0=(ωHϱH,0,0) of the COVID-19-only model (5) is obtained from the eigenvalues of the characteristic polynomial, which states that the equilibrium is stable if the eigenvalues of the characteristic polynomial are all negative. For ϵHC0, the Jacobian matrix of the system is obtained as

J(ϵHC0)=-ϱH-ΛHCηHC0ΛHC-(αHC+ϱH+φHC)00αHC-(ϱH+ηHC).

The eigenvalues of characteristic polynomial are given by

a1=-ϱH,a2=-(ϱH+ηHC),anda3=ΛHC-(αHC+ϱH+φHC)=ΛHC(αHC+ϱH+φHC)-1=R0C-1.

Hence, the DFE ϵHC0 of the COVID-19-only sub-model (5) is locally asymptotically stable if R0C<1. For R0C>1, prevalence of COVID-19 approaches an endemic equilibrium.

We will skip the proof of the global stability of the endemic equilibrium (EE) of model system (5) which was carried out in details in [8], where the COVID-19 only model is shown not to undergo the phenomenon of backward bifurcation, consequently, the EE of the model system (5) is globally asymptotically stable.

Dengue-only model

The dengue-only sub-model is obtained by setting IHC=RHC=IDC=0 in (3). Thus, we have

dSHdt=ωH-ΛVDIVDNHSH-ϱHSH+ηHDRHD,dIHDdt=ΛVDIVDNHSH-(αHD+ϱH+φHD)IHD,dRHDdt=αHDIHD-ϱHRHD-ηHDRHD,dSVDdt=ωD-ΛHDIHDNHSVD-ϱVSVD,dIVDdt=ΛHDIHDNHSVD-ϱVIVD, 7

where, now, the total human population is NH=SH+IHD+RHD and the vector population is NV=SVD+IVD. The feasible region for the sub-model system (7) is

ΩD=(SH,IHD,RHD,SVD,IVD)R+5:NHωHϱH;NVωDϱV.

It can be shown that the region ΩD is positively invariant (so that it is sufficient to consider the dynamics of the model (7) in ΩD).

The disease-free equilibrium (DFE) of the dengue-only model (7) is given by

ϵD0=SH,IHD,RHD,SVD,IVD=ωHϱH,0,0,ωVϱV,0,

and its associated next generation matrices are

F=00ΛVD000ΛHDωVϱHωHϱV00,

and

V=αHD+ϱH+φHD00-αHDϱH+ηHD000ϱV,

so that,

R0D=ρ(FV-1)=1ϱVΛHDΛVDϱHωVωH(αHD+ϱH+φHD). 8

The threshold parameter R0D is the geometric mean of the average number of secondary host infections produced by one vector, and the average number of secondary vector infections produced by one host [35, 36]. In fact, the form of the basic reproduction number in a vector-borne disease is generally a geometric mean between infections caused by hosts and infections caused by vectors [36].

Lemma 3.3

The DFE of the Dengue-only model (7) is locally asymptotically stable if R0D<1 and unstable if R0D>1.

Proof

The stability of the DFE ϵD0=(SH,IHD,RHD,SVD,IVD)=(ωHϱH,0,0,ωVϱV,0), of the Dengue-only model (7) is obtained from the eigenvalues of the characteristic polynomial, which states that the equilibrium is stable if the eigenvalues of the characteristic polynomial are all negative. For ϵD0, the Jacobian matrix of the system is obtained as

J(ϵD0)=-ϱH000-ΛVD0-(αHC+ϱH+φHC)00ΛVD0αHC-(ϱH+ηHC)000-ΛHDωVϱHωHϱH0-ϱV00ΛHDωVϱHωHϱH00-ϱV.

The eigenvalues of characteristic polynomial are given by

a1=-ϱH,a2=-ϱV,a3=-(ϱH+ηHC),a4=-12ωHϱV(τ-ϱV)2+4ΛHCΛHDϱHωVωHϱV-12(τ+ϱV),

and

a5=12ωHϱV(τ-ϱV)2+4ΛHCΛHDϱHωVωHϱV-12(τ+ϱV),

where τ=(αHD+ϱH+φHD). It can be shown that all eigenvalues of the characteristic equation have negative real parts if R0D<1. Hence, the DFE ϵHD0 of the Dengue-only model system (7) is locally asymptotically stable if R0D<1.

For R0D>1, prevalence of dengue approaches an endemic equilibrium.

Other analyses of the dengue-only sub-model have been adequately dealt with in [37], where also, the dengue only sub-model is shown to undergo the phenomenon of backward bifurcation under certain conditions.

Dengue-COVID-19 full model

The feasible region for system 3 is given by

ΩCD=ΩHC×ΩHD,

with ΩHC and ΩHD are as defined in the previous sections. It can be shown following the approach in [15, 17] that all solutions of the co-infection Dengue-COVID-19 model system 3 with non-negative initial conditions remain non-negative for all time t0. Also, from the theory of permanence [31], all solutions on the boundary of ΩCD eventually enter the interior of ΩCD. Thus, ΩCD is positively invariant and attracting under the flow induced by the system 3

Stability of the disease-free equilibrium

The disease-free equilibrium of the Dengue-COVID-19 3 is given by

E0=(SH,IHD,RHD,IHC,RHC,IDC,SVD,IVD)=(ΛHDϱH,0,0,0,0,0,ΛVDϱV,0). 9

Having derived the basic reproduction numbers for the COVID-19 only and Dengue only sub-models using the next generation method in [34], the associated reproduction number for the full model system 3 is given by

R0CD=maxR0HC,R0HD. 10

The following result follows from Theorem 2 in [34].

Theorem 4.1

The DFE of the Dengue-COVID-19 model 3 is locally asymptotically stable if the threshold parameter R0CD<1, and unstable if R0CD>1.

Optimal control model

In this section, we add time variant controls u1(t), u2(t), u3(t), u4(t) and u5(t) into (3) to obtain the optimal interventions for the eradication of COVID-19 and dengue. The controls are defined below:

  • i.

    u1: control against incident dengue infection,

  • ii.

    u2: control against incident COVID-19 infection,

  • iii.

    u3: control against co-infection with a second disease,

  • iv.

    u4: dengue treatment control,

  • v.

    u5: COVID-19 treatment control.

The controls u1,u2 and u3 satisfy 0u1<0.81 following from the efficacy of the dengue vaccine reported in [29], 0<u2<0.90, following the general efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine [38], 0<u30.75 taking the average of both the dengue and COVID-19 vaccine efficacies. The dengue and COVID-19 treatment controls u4 and u5 are bounded as follows: 0<u4,u50.80, with the assumption that treatment cannot be 100% effective against either disease. The control system is presented thus:

dSHdt=ωH-(1-u1)ΛVDIVDNH+(1-u2)ΛHC(IHC+IDC)NHSH-ϱHSH+ηHDRHD+ηHCRHC,dIHDdt=ΛVDIVDNH((1-u1)SH+RHC)-((1+u4)αHD+ϱH+φHD)IHD-(1-u3)ϑ1ΛHC(IHC+IDC)NHIHD+(1+u5)αHCIDC,dRHDdt=(1+u4)αHDIHD-ϱHRHD-ηHDRHD-ΛHC(IHC+IDC)NHRHD,dIHCdt=ΛHC(IHC+IDC)NH((1-u2)SH+RHD)-((1+u5)αHC+ϱH+φHC)IHC-(1-u3)ϑ2ΛVDIVDNHIHC+(1+u4)αHDIDC,dRHCdt=(1+u5)αHCIHC-ϱHRHC-ηHCRHC-ΛVDIVDNHRHC,dIDCdt=(1-u3)ϑ1ΛHC(IHC+IDC)NHIHD+(1-u3)ϑ2ΛVDIVDNHIHC-(ϱH+φHD+φHC+(1+u4)αHD+(1+u5)αHC)IDC,dSVDdt=ωD-(1-u1)ΛHD(IHD+IDC)NHSVD-ϱVSVD,dIVDdt=(1-u1)ΛHD(IHD+IDC)NHSVD-ϱVIVD, 11

subject to the initial conditions SH(0)=SH0,IHD(0)=IHD0,RHD(0)=RHD0,IHC(0)=IHC0,RHC(0)=RHC0,IDC(0)=IDC0,SVD(0)=SVD0,IVD(0)=IVD0.

The following objective function is considered.

J[u1,u2,u3,u4,u5]=0T[c1IHD(t)+c2IHC(t)+c3IDC(t)+c4SVD(t)+c5IVD(t)+w12u12+w22u22+w32u32+w42u42+w52u52]dt, 12

where T is the final time. The total cost includes the cost of COVID-19 and dengue vaccinations, and other preventive measures and COVID-19 and dengue treatment for all infected individuals. As a result, the nonlinear cost functional is used. In this sequel, we apply the quadratic objective functional for measuring the cost of the control [20]. We seek to find an optimal control, u1,u2,u3,u4,u5, such that

J(u1,u2,u3,u4,u5)=min{J(u1,u2,u3,u4,u5)|u1,u2,u3,u4,u5U}, 13

where U={(u1,u2,u3,u4,u5)}, such that u1,u2,u3 are measurable with 0u10.9,0u20.9,0u30.9, 0u41, 0u51 for t[0,T] is the control set. The Hamiltonian is given by:

Z=c1IHD(t)+c2IHC(t)+c3IDC(t)+c4SVD(t)+c5IVD(t)+w12u12+w22u22+w32u32+w42u42+w52u52+λ1ωH-(1-u1)ΛVDIVDNH+(1-u2)ΛHC(IHC+IDC)NHSH-ϱHSH+ηHDRHD+ηHCRHC+λ2ΛVDIVDNH((1-u1)SH+RHC)-((1+u4)αHD+ϱH+φHD)IHD-(1-u3)ϑ1ΛHC(IHC+IDC)NHIHD+(1+u5)αHCIDC+λ3(1+u4)αHDIHD-ϱHRHD-ηHDRHD-ΛHC(IHC+IDC)NHRHD+λ4ΛHC(IHC+IDC)NH((1-u2)SH+RHD)-((1+u5)αHC+ϱH+φHC)IHC-(1-u3)ϑ2ΛVDIVDNHIHC+(1+u4)αHDIDC+λ5(1+u5)αHCIHC-ϱHRHC-ηHCRHC-ΛVDIVDNHRHC+λ6(1-u3)ϑ1ΛHC(IHC+IDC)NHIHD+(1-u3)ϑ2ΛVDIVDNHIHC-(ϱH+φHD+φHC+(1+u4)αHD+(1+u5)αHC)IDC+λ7ωD-(1-u1)ΛHD(IHD+IDC)NHSVD-ϱVSVD+λ8(1-u1)ΛHD(IHD+IDC)NHSVD-ϱVIVD. 14

Theorem 5.1

Suppose the set {u1,u2,u3,u4,u5} minimizes J over U , then we have adjoint variables, λ1,λ2,...,λ8 (see Appendix for the expressions of dλidt) satisfying the adjoint equations

-λit=Zi,

with

λi(tf)=0,where,i=SH,IHD,RHD,IHC,RHC,IDC,SVD,IVD. 15

Furthermore,

u1=min1,max0,ΛHD(IHD+IDC)SV(λ8-λ7)+IVDΛVDSH(λ2-λ1)w1NH,u2=min1,max0,ΛHC(IHC+IDC)SH(λ4-λ1)w2NH,u3=min1,max0,IHDΛHC(IHC+IDC)ϑ1(λ6-λ2)+IVDΛVD(IHC+IDC)ϑ2(λ6-λ4)w3NH,u4=min1,max0,IHDαHD(λ2-λ3)+IDCαHD(λ6-λ4)w4,u5=min1,max0,IHCαHC(λ4-λ5)+IDCαHC(λ6-λ2)w5, 16

Proof of Theorem 5.1

Consider U=(u1,u2,u3,u4,u5) and SH,IHD,RHD,IHC,RHC,IDC,SV,IVD being the associated solutions. Pontryagin’s Maximum Principle [39] is applied, such that there exist adjoint variables satisfying:

-dλ1dt=ZSH,λ1(tf)=0,-dλ2dt=ZIHD,λ2(tf)=0,-dλ3dt=ZRHD,λ3(tf)=0,-dλ4dt=ZIHC,λ4(tf)=0,-dλ5dt=ZRHC,λ5(tf)=0,-dλ6dt=ZIDC,λ6(tf)=0,-dλ7dt=ZSVD,λ7(tf)=0,-dλ8dt=ZIVD,λ8(tf)=0, 17

with λ1(tf)=λ2(tf)=λ3(tf)=λ4(tf)=λ5(tf)=λ6(tf)=λ7(tf)=λ8(tf)=0.

On the interior of the set, where 0<uj<1 for all (j=1,2,3,4,5), we have that

0=Zu1=w1NHu1-[IHDΛHDSV(λ8-λ7)+IVDΛVDSH(λ2-λ1)],0=Zu2=w2NHu2-[IHCΛHCSH(λ4-λ1)],0=Zu3=w3NHu3-[IHCIHDΛHCϑ1(λ6-λ2)+IHCIVDΛVDϑ2(λ6-λ4)],0=Zu3=w4u4-[IHDαHD(λ2-λ3)+IDCαHD(λ6-λ4)],0=Zu3=w5u5-[IHCαHC(λ4-λ5)+IDCαHC(λ6-λ2)]. 18

Therefore,

u1=ΛHD(IHD+IDC)SV(λ8-λ7)+IVDΛVDSH(λ2-λ1)w1NH,u2=ΛHC(IHC+IDC)SH(λ4-λ1)w2NH,u3=IHDΛHC(IHC+IDC)ϑ1(λ6-λ2)+IVDΛVD(IHC+IDC)ϑ2(λ6-λ4)w3NH,u4=IHDαHD(λ2-λ3)+IDCαHD(λ6-λ4)w4,u5=IHCαHC(λ4-λ5)+IDCαHC(λ6-λ2)w5. 19
u1=min1,max0,ΛHD(IHD+IDC)SV(λ8-λ7)+IVDΛVDSH(λ2-λ1)w1NH,u2=min1,max0,ΛHC(IHC+IDC)SH(λ4-λ1)w2NH,u3=min1,max0,IHDΛHC(IHC+IDC)ϑ1(λ6-λ2)+IVDΛVD(IHC+IDC)ϑ2(λ6-λ4)w3NH,u4=min1,max0,IHDαHD(λ2-λ3)+IDCαHD(λ6-λ4)w4,u5=min1,max0,IHCαHC(λ4-λ5)+IDCαHC(λ6-λ2)w5, 20

Baseline values of the parameters and model fitting

The total population of Brazil is estimated at 212,559,409 [27], while the life expectancy in Brazil is estimated at 75.88 years. Hence, we set the recruitment rat of humans to 212,559,40975.88×365 per day, whereas the natural death rate for humans is set at 175.88×365 per day. The dengue recovery rate is estimated at 0.15 per day [28, 29] so that we set αHD=0.15 per day. There is no clinical evidence to tell us about the susceptibility of COVID-19 patients to dengue or vice versa. Hence, we set ϑ1=ϑ2=1. The other dengue-related parameters are presented in Table 1, together with the references. The initial conditions are set as follows: SH(0)=200,000,000. The total dengue cases in Brazil for 2021, as at August, 2021 are estimated at 671,732 [40]. Hence, we set IHD=400,000, RHD=4000, IDC=200,000. The total active COVID-19 cases as at February 1, 2021, were 942,878. Hence, we set IHC=942,878. The total recoveries from COVID-19 as at that same day is 50,925. Thus, we set RHC(0)=50,925.

The model fitting was performed using fmincon function in the Optimization Toolbox of MATLAB [41]. Using the data sets for cumulative confirmed daily COVID-19 cases and deaths for Brazil from February 1, 2021, to September 20, 2021 [27], the COVID-19-related parameters are estimated as follows: ΛHC = 0.1494, φHC = 0.0047, αHC = 0.36978. Figures 2 and 3 present the fitting of the model (3) to the cumulative confirmed daily COVID-19 cases and cumulative daily COVID-19 deaths for Brazil from 1 February, 2021 to 20 September, 2021. Both figures show that our model fits well to the two data sets obtained from [27]

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Model fitting to cumulative confirmed daily COVID-19 cases for Brazil from 1 February, 2021 to 20 September, 2021

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Model fitting to cumulative daily COVID-19 deaths for Brazil from 1 February, 2021 to 20 September, 2021

Numerical simulations

Simulations carried out on the control system (11), adjoint Eq. (17) and characterizations of the control (20) are run in MATLAB using the forward backward sweep by the Runge–Kutta method. The balancing factors are assumed as follows: c1=c2=c3=c4=c5=1. Likewise, the quadratic cost functions 12w1u12,12w2u22,12w3u32, 12w4u42 and 12w5u52 are applied, over time, in order to compute the total cost for each strategy implemented. The weight constants are set as follows: w1=900,w2=1500,w3=2000,w4=1000 and w5=1200. It is assumed here that, the cost of implementing the dengue prevention control (vaccination and use of treated bed nets and insecticides spray) is less compared to the cost of implementing the COVID-19 prevention control (vaccination, use of hand sanitizers and personal hygiene, use of face-masks in public places and use of personal protective equipments (PPE) by medical personnel). We also assumed that the cost of implementing control against co-infection with a second disease should be more than the cost of preventive control against respective diseases. It is also assumed that the cost of dengue treatment control should be less compared to the cost of COVID-19 treatment control.

Strategy A: Control against incident dengue infection (u10)

Simulations of the optimal control system (11) when the strategy that prevents incident dengue infection (u10) is administered are presented in Figs. 4, 56 and 7 , respectively. It is observed that when this intervention strategy is implemented, for ΛVD=5.0,ΛHD=3.6 and ΛHC=0.5, so that the reproduction number, R0CD=maxR0HC,R0HD=3.4598>1, there is a significant reduction in the number of individuals infected with dengue (Fig. 4) (as expected). Interestingly, this dengue prevention strategy also averts about 870,000 new COVID-19 cases (as depicted by Fig. 5). Also, worthy of note is that, this strategy against incident dengue infection also has positive population level impact on number of individuals co-infected with dengue and COVID-19 (as shown in Fig. 6, where a total of 4,196,644 new co-infection cases were averted). Moreover, this strategy also averts 346,181 cases of vector infections, thereby significantly reducing the infectious vector population (Fig. 7). The control profile for this control strategy is presented in Fig. 8. The control profile shows that this strategy is at its peak for the first 15 days, drops and then rises again and remains at its peak for the remaining days of the simulation.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Individuals infected with dengue when strategy A is implemented

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

Individuals infected with COVID-19 when strategy A is implemented

Fig. 6.

Fig. 6

Individuals co-infected with dengue and COVID-19 infections when strategy1 A is implemented

Fig. 7.

Fig. 7

Infectious vectors infected with dengue when strategy A is implemented

Fig. 8.

Fig. 8

Control profile for strategy A

Strategy B: Control against incident COVID-19 infection (u20)

Simulations of the model (11) when the strategy that prevents incident COVID-19 infection (u20) is implemented are presented in Figs. 910 and 11. It is observed that when this strategy is implemented, for ΛVD=5.0,ΛHD=3.6 and ΛHC=0.5, so that the reproduction number, R0CD=maxR0HC,R0HD=3.4598>1, there is a significant reduction in the number of individuals infected with COVID-19 infection (Fig. 9) (as expected). Also, it is imperative to note that, this control against incident COVID-19 infection also has positive impact on number of individuals co-infected with dengue and COVID-19 (Fig. 10, where a total of 4,204,905 new co-infection cases were prevented). In addition, this control also averts about 34,400 vector infections, thereby significantly bringing down the infectious vector population (Fig. 11). The control profile for this control strategy is depicted in Fig. 12. The control profile shows that this strategy is at its peak for the first 15 days, drops and then rises again, and remains at its peak for the remaining days of the simulation.

Fig. 9.

Fig. 9

Individuals infected with dengue when strategy B is implemented

Fig. 10.

Fig. 10

Individuals co-infected with dengue and COVID-19 infections when strategy B is implemented

Fig. 11.

Fig. 11

Infectious vectors infected with dengue when strategy B is implemented

Fig. 12.

Fig. 12

Control profile for strategy B

Strategy C: Control against co-infection with a second disease (u30)

The optimal control simulations for the system (11) when the strategy that implements control against co-infection with a second disease (u30) is administered are presented in Figs. 13 and 14 . It is revealed that when this strategy is implemented, for ΛVD=5.0,ΛHD=3.6 and ΛHC=0.5, so that the reproduction number, R0CD=maxR0HC,R0HD=3.4598>1, there is a great reduction in the co-infection new cases (as shown in Fig. 13), where a total of 3,155,000 co-infection new cases were averted. Also, this strategy also averts about 18,300 vector infections, thus significantly bringing down the infectious vector population (Fig. 14). The control profile for this control strategy is given in Fig. 15. The control profile shows that this strategy is at its peak for the entire simulation period.

Fig. 13.

Fig. 13

Individuals co-infected with dengue and COVID-19 infections when strategy C is implemented

Fig. 14.

Fig. 14

Infectious vectors infected with dengue when strategy C is implemented

Fig. 15.

Fig. 15

Control profile for strategy C

Strategy D: Dengue treatment control (u40)

The control model (11) simulations when dengue treatment strategy alone (u40) is administered are given in Figs. 1617 and 18 . It is observed that when dengue treatment strategy alone is implemented, for ΛVD=5.0,ΛHD=3.6 and ΛHC=0.5, so that the reproduction number, R0CD=maxR0HC,R0HD=3.4598>1, there is a gross reduction in the number of individuals infected with dengue (Fig. 16) (as expected). Also, worthy of note is that, this strategy equally has positive population level impact on co-infected individuals (as depicted by Fig. 17, where a total of 2,349,000 new co-infection cases were averted). In addition, this strategy also prevents 55,200 vector infections (as shown in Fig. 18). The control plot is presented in Fig. 19. The control profile shows that this strategy only attains its peak value and is most effective after about 120 days.

Fig. 16.

Fig. 16

Individuals infected with dengue when strategy D is implemented

Fig. 17.

Fig. 17

Individuals co-infected with dengue and COVID-19 infections when strategy D is implemented

Fig. 18.

Fig. 18

Infectious vectors infected with dengue when strategy D is implemented

Fig. 19.

Fig. 19

Control profile for strategy D

Strategy E: COVID-19 treatment control (u50)

The control model (11) simulations when COVID-19 treatment control (u50) is the only administered strategy are presented in Figs. 2021 and 22 . It is seen from the simulations, which were carried out for ΛVD=5.0,ΛHD=3.6 and ΛHC=0.5, so that the reproduction number, R0CD=maxR0HC,R0HD=3.4598>1, that there is a significant reduction in the number of individuals infected with COVID-19 (Fig. 20) (as expected). Interestingly, this strategy also has positive population level impact on co-infection new cases (as presented in Fig. 21, where a total of 2,544,000 new co-infection cases were averted). Nonetheless, this strategy also averts about 11,200 cases of vector infections, thus bringing down the infectious vector population (Fig. 22). The control plot against time, for this strategy, is given in Fig. 23. The control profile shows that this strategy attains its peak value for the initial days of the simulation, drops and then rises to its peak again after about 140 days.

Fig. 20.

Fig. 20

Individuals infected with dengue when strategy E is implemented

Fig. 21.

Fig. 21

Individuals co-infected with dengue and COVID-19 infections when strategy E is implemented

Fig. 22.

Fig. 22

Infectious vectors infected with dengue when strategy E is implemented

Fig. 23.

Fig. 23

Control profile for strategy E

Cost-effectiveness analysis

In this section, we seek to determine the intervention strategy which is most cost-effective in the fight against dengue and COVID-19 co-infections. In order to realize this, the methods used are: the average cost-effectiveness ratio (ACER) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). ”The cost-effectiveness analysis is used to evaluate the health interventions related benefits so as to justify the costs of the strategies . This is obtained by comparing the differences among the health outcomes and costs of those interventions. ACER deals with a single intervention strategy and weighing the intervention against its baseline option. It is the ratio of the total cost of the intervention to the total number of infection averted by the intervention” [20]. The formula is as follows:

ACER=Total cost produced by interventionTotal number of infection averted.

In a similar manner, ICER deals with the comparison of the differences in the costs and health benefits of two alternate competing interventions. ”It is the ratio of the change in costs of two alternative strategies to the change in the total number of infection averted by the two strategies”. The ICER formula is given by:

ICER=Difference in costs between strategiesDifference in health effects between strategies.

Since our major objective is on how to reduce the co-infection of both dengue and COVID-19 in the population, the total co-infected cases averted and the total cost of the strategies applied shall be used for the cost-effectiveness analysis in this section. These are presented in Table 2. The total cases averted is obtained by calculating the difference in the population of co-infected individuals when control is applied and when control is not applied.

Table 2.

Increasing order of the total co-infection cases averted using the control strategies

Strategy Total infection averted Total cost ACER
D: (u40) 2,349,000 1000 0.0004257
E: (u50) 2,544,000 1200 0.0004717
C: (u30) 3,155,930 2000 0.006339
A: (u10) 4,196,644 900 0.002145
B: (u20) 4,204,905 1500 0.0003567

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for strategies D (dengue treatment control (u40)) and strategy E (COVID-19 treatment control (u50)) are now evaluated.

ICER (D)=10002,349,000=0.0004257,ICER (E)=1200-10002,544,000-2,349,000=0.001026.

Comparing ICER (D) and ICER(E), it is observed that ICER (E) is greater than ICER (D), showing that strategy E is more costly and less effective compared to strategy D. Therefore, strategy E is removed from proceeding ICER computations, shown in Table 3. We shall now compare strategies D and C (Table 4).

Table 3.

ICER computations for strategies D and E

Strategy Total infection averted Total cost ACER ICER
D: (u40) 2,349,000 1000 0.0004257 0.0004257
E: (u50) 2,544,000 1200 0.0004717 0.001026

Table 4.

ICER computations for strategies D and C

Strategy Total infection averted Total cost ACER ICER
D: (u40) 2,349,000 1000 0.0004257 0.0004257
C: (u30) 3,155,000 2000 0.0006339 0.001241

Computing ICER for strategies D (dengue treatment control (u40)) and C (control against co-infection with a second disease (u30)), it is observed that ICER (C) is greater than ICER (D), showing that strategy C is more costly and less effective compared to strategy D. Hence, strategy C is removed from subsequent ICER computations. We shall now compare strategies D and A (Table 5).

ICER (D)=10002,349,000=0.0004257,ICER (C)=2000-10003,155,000-2,349,000=0.001241.

Computing ICER for strategies D (dengue treatment control (u40)) and A (control against incident dengue infection (u10)), it is observed that ICER (D) is greater than ICER (A), showing that strategy D is more costly and less effective compared to strategy A. Thus, strategy A is used in subsequent ICER computations, while strategy D is removed. We shall now compare strategies A and B (Table 6).

ICER (D)=10002,349,000=0.0004257,ICER (A)=900-10004,196,644-2,349,000=-0.00005412.

Table 5.

ICER computations for strategies D and A

Strategy Total infection averted Total cost ACER ICERr
D: (u40) 2,349,000 1000 0.0004257 0.0004257
A: (u10) 4,196,644 900 0.0003567 – 0.00005412

Table 6.

ICER computations for strategies A and B

Strategy Total infection averted Total costr ACER ICER
A: (u10) 4,196,644 900 0.0002145 0.0002145
B: (u20) 4,204,905 1500 0.0003567 0.07263

Computing ICER for strategies A (control against incident dengue infection (u10)) and B (control against incident COVID-19 infection (u10)), it is observed that ICER (B) is greater than ICER (A), showing that strategy B is more costly and less effective compared to strategy A. Hence, strategy A is the most cost-effective in controlling dengue and COVID-19 co-infections.

ICER (A)=9004,196,644=0.0002145,ICER (B)=1500-9004,204,905-4,196,644=0.07263.

Conclusion

We have formulated and analyzed a mathematical model for the co-infection and COVID-19 and dengue transmission dynamics, with optimal control and cost-effectiveness analysis. The sub-models are shown to be locally asymptotically stable when the respective reproduction numbers are below unity. Using available data sets, the model is fitted to the cumulative confirmed daily COVID-19 cases and deaths for Brazil (a country with high co-endemicity of both diseases) from February 1, 2021 to September 20, 2021. The fitting was done using the fmincon function in the Optimization Toolbox of MATLAB. Parameters denoting the COVID-19 contact rate, death rate and loss of infection acquired immunity to COVID-19 were estimated using the two data sets. The appropriate conditions for the existence of optimal control and the optimality system for the co-infection model are established using the Pontryagin’s Principle. Different control strategies were considered and simulated for the model, which include: controls against incident dengue and COVID-19 infections, control against co-infection with a second disease and treatment controls for both dengue and COVID-19. Highlights of the simulation results show that:

  • i.

    dengue prevention strategy could avert as much as 870,000 new COVID-19 infections (as depicted in Fig. 5);

  • ii.

    dengue only control strategy or COVID-19 only control strategy significantly reduces new co-infection cases. These are presented in Figs. 6 and 10 ;

  • iii.

    the strategy that implements control against incident COVID-19 infection (vaccination, use of hand sanitizers and personal hygiene, use of face-masks in public places and use of personal protective equipments (PPE) by medical personnel) averts the highest number of co-infection cases than any of the administered control strategies. This is depicted by Fig. 10, where a total of 4,204,905 new co-infection cases were averted.

  • iv.

    the strategy implementing control against incident dengue infection is the most cost-effective in controlling dengue and COVID-19 co-infections as presented in Sect. 6.6).

As COVID-19 pandemic threatens the delivery of dengue services, the lockdown could have further impacted the continuation of dengue control programs, and there is an urgent need for rapid and effective responses to avoid dengue outbreaks.

Our model was created based on the focus of COVID-19 and dengue co-infection only. Thus, we did not investigate the impact of multiple COVID-19 stains and waves on the dynamics of the two diseases. Also, the emergence of COVID-19 and dengue co-infection warrants further investigations at the individual level (within host dynamics). While this is to the best of our knowledge seemingly the first study of the co-interaction of COVID-19 and dengue, more studies should be devoted to the mathematical (agent based, within/intra-host dynamics) and epidemiological dynamics of this co-infection. Due to the uncertainty of several aspects and characteristics of both diseases, we realize the difficulty in finding estimates for certain parameters in this study. Specific parameters difficult to estimate are the modification parameters accounting for susceptibility of dengue infected individuals to COVID-19 and the modification parameter accounting for susceptibility of COVID-19 infected individuals to dengue. Because mathematical models are symbolic representations of biological systems, by construction, they inherit the loss of information which could potentially make the prediction of model outcomes imprecise. Therefore, exploring sensitivity analysis of the model variables and parameters to changes in the assumptions made regarding the characteristics of the disease is viable.

It is important to note from Fig. 15 that the control u3 for the co-infection is optimally applied for the entire simulation period. On the contrary, the other four controls u1,u2,u4 and u5 all start at a high lever, but deepens after a short time before returning to the optimum. This striking result may be due to the initial inadequate treatment when the disease emerged, and vaccine hesitancy/denial at the onset of the vaccination campaign. It has been reported how hesitancy/denial is challenging the vaccination campaigns with the number of those infected increasing relative to the percentage of population that avoids getting vaccinated [42]. This is an area that warrants further investigation as well as the impact of multiple waves of COVID-19 on disease co-interaction.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and queries which greatly help improve the manuscript.

Appendix: Adjoint functions of optimality system

λ1=λ2IVβVu1-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH+IVβVRC-SHu1-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2+IDβCϑ1u3-1IC+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2-λ6ICIVβVϑ2u3-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2+IDβCϑ1u3-1IC+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2+λ1ϱH+SHβCu2-1IC+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2+IVβVu1-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2-βCu2-1IC+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH-IVβVu1-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH+λ4βCu2-1IC+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH+βCRD-SHu2-1IC+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2+ICIVβVϑ2u3-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2-RDβCλ3IC+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2-IVRCβVλ5IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2+SVβDλ7u1-1ID+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2-SVβDλ8u1-1ID+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2,λ2=λ8SVβDu1-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH-SVβDu1-1ID+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2-λ7SVβDu1-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH-SVβDu1-1ID+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2-c1-λ3αDu4+1+RDβCIC+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2
-λ6ICIVβVϑ2u3-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2-βCϑ1u3-1IC+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH+IDβCϑ1u3-1IC+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2+λ4βCRD-SHu2-1IC+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2+ICIVβVϑ2u3-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2+λ2φD+ϱH+αDu4+1+IVβVRC-SHu1-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2-βCϑ1u3-1IC+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH+IDβCϑ1u3-1IC+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2+SHλ1βCu2-1IC+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2+IVβVu1-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2-IVRCβVλ5IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2,λ3=λ4βCRD-SHu2-1IC+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2-βCIC+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH+ICIVβVϑ2u3-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2-λ1ηD-SHβCu2-1IC+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2+IVβVu1-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2-λ6ICIVβVϑ2u3-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2+IDβCϑ1u3-1IC+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2+λ2IVβVRC-SHu1-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2+IDβCϑ1u3-1IC+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2+λ3ηD+ϱH+βCIC+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH-RDβCIC+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2-IVRCβVλ5IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2+SVβDλ7u1-1ID+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2-SVβDλ8u1-1ID+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2,
λ4=λ6IDβCϑ1u3-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH+IVβVϑ2u3-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH-ICIVβVϑ2u3-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2-IDβCϑ1u3-1IC+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2-c2+λ3RDβCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH-RDβCIC+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2-λ5αCu5+1+IVRCβVIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2+λ2IVβVRC-SHu1-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2-IDβCϑ1u3-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH+IDβCϑ1u3-1IC+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2+λ4φC+ϱH+αCu5+1-βCRD-SHu2-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH+βCRD-SHu2-1IC+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2-IVβVϑ2u3-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH+ICIVβVϑ2u3-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2+SHλ1βCu2-1IC+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2-βCu2-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH+IVβVu1-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2+SVβDλ7u1-1ID+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2-SVβDλ8u1-1ID+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2,
λ5=λ2IVβVRC-SHu1-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2-IVβVIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH+IDβCϑ1u3-1IC+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2-λ6ICIVβVϑ2u3-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2+IDβCϑ1u3-1IC+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2-λ1ηC-SHβCu2-1IC+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2+IVβVu1-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2+λ5ηC+ϱH+IVβVIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH-IVRCβVIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2+λ4βCRD-SHu2-1IC+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2+ICIVβVϑ2u3-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2-RDβCλ3IC+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2+SVβDλ7u1-1ID+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2-SVβDλ8u1-1ID+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2,
λ6=λ8SVβDu1-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH-SVβDu1-1ID+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2-λ4αDu4+1+βCRD-SHu2-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH-βCRD-SHu2-1IC+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2-ICIVβVϑ2u3-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2-λ7SVβDu1-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH-SVβDu1-1ID+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2-c3-λ2αCu5+1-IVβVRC-SHu1-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2+IDβCϑ1u3-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH-IDβCϑ1u3-1IC+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2+λ3RDβCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH-RDβCIC+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2+λ6φC+φD+ϱH+αCu5+1+αDu4+1+IDβCϑ1u3-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH-ICIVβVϑ2u3-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2-IDβCϑ1u3-1IC+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2+SHλ1βCu2-1IC+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2-βCu2-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH+IVβVu1-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2-IVRCβVλ5IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH2,λ7=λ7ϱV-βDu1-1ID+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH-c4+βDλ8u1-1ID+IDCIC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH
λ8=λ8ϱV-c5+RCβVλ5IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH-βVλ2RC-SHu1-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH-SHβVλ1u1-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH-ICβvλ4ϑ2u3-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH+ICβVλ6ϑ2u3-1IC+ID+IDC+RC+RD+SH,

Data Availability Statement

This manuscript has associated data in a data repository. [Authors’ comment: The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.]

References

  • 1.Verduyn M, Allou N, Gazaille V, Andre M, Desroche T, Jaffar M-C, et al. Co-infection of dengue and COVID-19: a case report. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2020;14(8):e0008476. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008476. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Masyeni S, Santoso MS, Widyaningsih PD, Asmara DW, Nainu F, Harapan H, Sasmono RT. Serological cross-reaction and coinfection of dengue and COVID-19 in Asia: experience from Indonesia. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2021;102:152–154. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.10.043. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Lansbury L, Lim B, Baskaran V, Lim WS. Co-infections in people with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Infect. 2020;81(2):266–275. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.05.046. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Malibari AA, Al-Husayni F, Jabri A, Al-Amri A, Alharbi M. A patient with dengue fever and COVID-19: coinfection or not? Cureus. 2020;12(12):e11955. doi: 10.7759/cureus.11955. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Saddique A, Rana MS, Alam MM, et al. Emergence of co-infection of COVID-19 and dengue: a serious public health threat. J. Infect. 2020;81(6):e16–e18. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.08.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Hussein MIH, Albashir AAD, Elawad OAMA, et al. Malaria and COVID-19: unmasking their ties. Malar. J. 2020;19:457. doi: 10.1186/s12936-020-03541-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Joubert A, Andry F, Bertolotti A, Accot F, Koumar Y, Legrand F, et al. Distinguishing non severe cases of dengue from COVID-19 in the context of co-epidemics: a cohort study in a SARSCoV-2 testing center on Reunion island. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2021;15(4):e0008879. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008879. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Tchoumi SY, Diagne ML, Rwezaura H, Tchuenche JM. Malaria and COVID-19 co-dynamics: a mathematical model and optimal control. Appl. Math. Model. 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.apm.2021.06.016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Miah MA, Husna A. Coinfection, coepidemics of COVID-19, and dengue in dengue-endemic countries: a serious health concern. J. Med. Virol. 2021;93(1):161–162. doi: 10.1002/jmv.26269. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Nacher M, Douine M, Gaillet M, Flamand C, Rousset D, Rousseau C, et al. Simultaneous dengue and COVID-19 epidemics: difficult days ahead? PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2020;14(8):e0008426. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008426. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Khalil A, Badr B, Wright H, Talo M, Atteiya M. Dengue fever and COVID-19 co-infection at the emergency department of a tertiary care hospital in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Eur J. Case Rep. Intern. Med. 2020;7(12):002167. doi: 10.12890/2020_002167. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Hilmy AI, Dey RK, Imad HA, et al. Coronavirus disease 2019 and dengue: two case reports. J. Med. Case Rep. 2021;15:171. doi: 10.1186/s13256-021-02707-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Haqqi A, Awan UA, Ali M, Saqib MAN, Ahmed H, Afzal MS. COVID-19 and dengue virus coepidemics in Pakistan: a dangerous combination for an overburdened healthcare system. J. Med. Virol. 2021;93(1):80–82. doi: 10.1002/jmv.26144. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Jiang L, Liu Y, Su W, Liu W, Yang Z. Decreased dengue cases attributable to the effect of COVID-19 in Guangzhou in 2020. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2021;15(5):e0009441. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009441. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Mtisi E, Rwezaura H, Tchuenche JM. A mathematical analysis of malaria and tuberculosis co-dynamics. Discrete Cont. Dyn. Syst. B. 2009;12(4):827–864. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Pinto CMA, Tenreiro MJA. Fractional model for malaria transmission under control strategies. Comput. Math. Appl. 2013;66(5):908–916. doi: 10.1016/j.camwa.2012.11.017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Mukandavire Z, Gumel AB, Garira W, Tchuenche JM. Mathematical analysis of a model for HIV-malaria co-infection. Math. Biosci. Eng. 2009;6(2):333–362. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2009.6.333. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kavitha C, Gowrisankar A, Banerjee S. The second and third waves in India: when will the pandemic be culminated? Eur. Phys. J. Plus. 2021;136:596. doi: 10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-01586-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Easwaramoorthy D, Gowrisankar A, Manimaran A, Nandhini S, Rondoni L, Banerjee S. An exploration of fractal-based prognostic model and comparative analysis for second wave of COVID-19 diffusion. Nonlinear Dyn. 2021;8:1–21. doi: 10.1007/s11071-021-06865-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Omame A, Nnanna CU, Inyama SC. Optimal control and cost-effectiveness analysis of an HPV-chlamydia trachomatis co-infection model. Acta Biotheor. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s10441-020-09401-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Omame A, Okuonghae D. A co-infection model for oncogenic Human papillomavirus and tuberculosis with optimal control and cost-effectiveness analysis. Optim. Control. Appl. Methods. 2021 doi: 10.1002/oca.2717. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Chukukere EC, Omame A, Onyenegecha CP, Inyama SC. Mathematical analysis of a model for Chlamydia and Gonorrhea codynamics with optimal control. Results Phys. 2021;27:104566. doi: 10.1016/j.rinp.2021.104566. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Nwajeri UK, Omame A, Onyenegecha CP. A fractional order model for HPV and CT co-infection. Results Phys. 2021;28:104643. doi: 10.1016/j.rinp.2021.104643. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Njeuhmeli E, Schnure M, Vazzano A, Gold E, Stegman P, Kripke K, Tchuenche M, Bollinger L, Forsythe S, Hankins C. Using mathematical modeling to inform health policy: a case study from voluntary medical male circumcision scale-up in eastern and southern Africa and proposed framework for success. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(3):e0213605. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213605. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Okuonghae D, Omame A. Analysis of a mathematical model for COVID-19 population dynamics in Lagos, Nigeria. Chaos Solitons Fractals. 2020;139:110032. doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2020.110032. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Rehman A, Singh R, Agarwal P. Modeling, analysis and prediction of new variants of Covid-19 and dengue co-infection on complex network. Chaos Solitons Fractals. 2021;150:111008. doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2021.111008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Brazil: Coronavirus Pandemic Country Profile. https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/brazil. Accessed 21st Sep 2021
  • 28.Garba SM, Gumel AB, Abu Bakar MR. Backward bifurcations in dengue transmission dynamics. Math. Biosci. 2008;215:11–25. doi: 10.1016/j.mbs.2008.05.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.K.O. Okuneye, J.X. Velasco-Hernandez, A.B. Gumel, The “unholy” Chikungunya-Dengue-Zika Trinity: a theoretical analysis. J. Biol. Syst. 25(4), 545–585 (2017)
  • 30.Birkhoff G, Rota GC. Ordinary Differential Equations. 4. New York: Wiley; 1989. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Hutson V, Schmitt K. Permanence and the dynamics of biological systems. Math. Biosci. 1992;111:1–71. doi: 10.1016/0025-5564(92)90078-B. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Nazir A, Ahmed N, Khan U, Mohyud-Din ST, Sooppy NKS, Khan I. An advanced version of a conformable mathematical model of Ebola virus disease in Africa. Alex. Eng. J. 2020;59(5):3261–3268. doi: 10.1016/j.aej.2020.08.050. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Ali M, Shah STH, Khan MIA. The role of asymptomatic class, quarantine and isolation in the transmission of COVID-19. J. Biol. Dyn. 2020;14(1):389–408. doi: 10.1080/17513758.2020.1773000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.van den Driessche P, Watmough J. Reproduction numbers and sub-threshold endemic equilibria for compartmental models of disease transmission. Math. Biosci. 2002;180(1):29–48. doi: 10.1016/S0025-5564(02)00108-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Kribs-Zaleta C. Vector consumption and contact process saturation in sylvatic transmission of T. cruzi. Math. Pop. Stud. 2016;13:132–152. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Crawford B, Kribs-Zaleta C. A metapopulation model for sylvatic T. cruzi transmission with vector migration. Math. Biosci. Eng. 2014;11(3):471–509. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2014.11.471. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Bonyah E, Khan MA, Okosun KO, Gómez-Aguilar JF. On the co-infection of dengue fever and Zika virus. Optim. Control Appl. Methods. 2019;40(3):394–421. doi: 10.1002/oca.2483. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Interim Clinical Considerations for Use of COVID-19 Vaccines Currently Authorized in the United States https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/covid-19-vaccines-us.html . Accessed July 14, 2021
  • 39.L. Pontryagin, V. Boltyanskii, R. Gamkrelidze, E. Mishchenko, The Mathematical Theory of Optimal Control Process 4, New York/London 1962 (Wiley, New York, 1963)
  • 40.Pan American Health Organization https://www3.paho.org/data/index.php/en/mnu-topics/indicadores-dengue-en.html. Accessed 4th Aug 2021
  • 41.McCall J. Genetic algorithms for modelling and optimisation. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 2005;184:205–222. doi: 10.1016/j.cam.2004.07.034. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Yigit M, Ozkaya-Parlakay A, Senel E. Evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine refusal in parents. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 2021;40(4):e134–e136. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000003042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

This manuscript has associated data in a data repository. [Authors’ comment: The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.]


Articles from European Physical Journal plus are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES