| Literature DB >> 35433239 |
Andrew Omame1,2, Mujahid Abbas3,4, Chibueze P Onyenegecha5.
Abstract
In co-infection models for two diseases, it is mostly claimed that, the dynamical behavior of the sub-models usually predict or drive the behavior of the complete models. However, under a certain assumption such as, allowing incident co-infection with both diseases, we have a different observation. In this paper, a new mathematical model for SARS-CoV-2 and Zika co-dynamics is presented which incorporates incident co-infection by susceptible individuals. It is worth mentioning that the assumption is missing in many existing co-infection models. We shall discuss the impact of this assumption on the dynamics of a co-infection model. The model also captures sexual transmission of Zika virus. The positivity and boundedness of solution of the proposed model are studied, in addition to the local asymptotic stability analysis. The model is shown to exhibit backward bifurcation caused by the disease-induced death rates and parameters associated with susceptibility to a second infection by those singly infected. Using Lyapunov functions, the disease free and endemic equilibria are shown to be globally asymptotically stable for R 0 1 , respectively. To manage the co-circulation of both infections effectively, under an endemic setting, time dependent controls in the form of SARS-CoV-2, Zika and co-infection prevention strategies are incorporated into the model. The simulations show that SARS-CoV-2 prevention could greatly reduce the burden of co-infections with Zika. Furthermore, it is also shown that prevention controls for Zika can significantly decrease the burden of co-infections with SARS-CoV-2.Entities:
Keywords: Backward bifurcation; Lyapunov functions; Optimal control; SARS-CoV-2; Stability; Zika
Year: 2022 PMID: 35433239 PMCID: PMC8994284 DOI: 10.1016/j.rinp.2022.105481
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Results Phys ISSN: 2211-3797 Impact factor: 4.565
Description of parameters in the model (1).
| Parameter | Description | Value | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| SARS-CoV-2 disease-induced death rate | 0.015/day | ||
| Zika disease-induced death rate, respectively | 0.001 | ||
| SARS-CoV-2 recovery rate | |||
| Zika recovery rates | |||
| Co-infected disease-induced death rate | 0.015/day | Assumed | |
| Co-infected recovery rate | Assumed | ||
| Human recruitment rate | |||
| Vector recruitment rate | 20,000 per day | ||
| Contact rate for SARS-CoV-2 infection | 0.5944 | ||
| Contact rate for zika infection (human to human) | 0.0100 | ||
| Contact rate for zika infection (vector to human) | 0.43 | ||
| Contact rate for zika infection (human to vector) | |||
| Co-infection contact rate (human to human) | 0.200 | Assumed | |
| Human natural death rate | |||
| Vector removal rate | |||
| Modification parameters | 1.0 | Assumed |
Fig. 1Impact of SARS-CoV-2 prevention () on individuals in and epidemiological classes. Here, , so that .
Fig. 2Impact of Zika prevention () on individuals in and , and vectors in epidemiological class. Here, , so that .
Fig. 3Impact of control against incident co-infections and on individuals in and , and vectors in epidemiological class. Here, , so that .