 Research
 Open access
 Published:
Threshold dynamical analysis on a class of agestructured tuberculosis model with immigration of population
Advances in Difference Equations volumeÂ 2017, ArticleÂ number:Â 258 (2017)
Abstract
Some studies show that latency and relapse, especially the agedependent latency and relapse, may affect the transmission dynamics of tuberculosis model. Meanwhile, the immigration of infected individuals induces the loss of diseasefree steady state and hence no basic reproduction number. In our work, a class of agestructured tuberculosis model with immigration is proposed, where the new individuals can immigrate into the susceptible, latent, infectious and removed compartments. We show that the endemic steady state is unique and globally asymptotically stable by using the Lyapunov functional. Numerical simulations are given to support our theoretical results.
1 Introduction
Tuberculosis (TB), mainly caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis, is a widespread infectious disease and has become a global public health issue. Despite various treatment strategies and beneficial policies on TB patients, the current global TB remains a leading cause of death from an infectious disease. According to reports, there were one death in five in England in the 17th century [1]. About \(8.7 \times10^{6}\) cases of TB globally is estimated in 2011, in which India has the largest total infected population, with an estimated 2.2 million new cases; China has the second largest TB epidemic, with more than \(1.3 \times10^{6}\) new cases every year [2].
Mathematical models have been a useful tool to understand and analyze the transmission dynamics of TB and other infectious diseases. In [3], a SEI type of TB model with a general contact rate is considered, and the global stability of equilibria is derived. In [4], a TB model with early and late latent stages is introduced to discuss effectiveness of treating TB patients at different stages. The reader can refer to more related mathematical models for TB; see [5â€“7]. It is well known that TB experiences a latent phase as well as a relapse phase which are the removed individuals who have been previously infected, but revert back to the infectious compartments due to the reactivation (see [8, 9]). Hence, in this paper, we focus on an SEIRtype model.
The level of infectiousness and the likelihood of progression may depend on the types of infectious diseases and individualsâ€™ status. Thus, the agestructured epidemic models are thought to be more practical to describe certain disease features. Taking into consideration the agedependent latency and relapse, Liu [10] established and researched the following initialboundaryvalue problem for a hybrid system of ordinary and partial differential equations:
with the boundary conditions
for \(t\geq0\) and the initial conditions
for \(a,b\geq0\). This model can be used to describe TB transmission dynamics. The initial conditions satisfy \(S_{0},I_{0}\in\mathbb{R}^{+}\) and \(e_{0}(a),r_{0}(b)\in L_{+}^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{+},\mathbb{R}^{+})\), where \(L_{+}^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{+},\mathbb{R}^{+})\) is the space of functions on \([0,\infty)\) that are nonnegative and Lebesgue integrable. Here, \(S(t)\) and \(I(t)\) are the densities of susceptible and infectious individuals at time t, and \(e(t,a)\) and \(r(t,b)\) represent the densities of latent and removed individuals at time t, age a and b, respectively. a and b are referred to the latent age and the time spending at the removed compartment. \(\Lambda _{s}\) denotes the recruitment of susceptible individuals, \(\mu_{j}\) (\(j=s,e,i,r\)) denotes their per capita mortality rate and k denotes the recovery rate. \(\sigma(a)\) and \(\gamma(b)\) are the removal rate from latent and removed compartments, respectively. The authors showed the asymptotic smoothness of solutions and uniform persistence of system (1.1). Furthermore, they obtained the basic reproduction number \(\Re_{0}\), which played as a threshold parameter and satisfied that if \(\Re_{0}<1\), then the diseasefree equilibrium of system (1.1) is locally and globally asymptotically stable, while if \(\Re _{0}>1\), then the endemic equilibrium uniquely exists and it is locally and globally asymptotically stable. More related work is done to understand the dynamics of agestructured models; see [11â€“15]. Famous books on agestructured models are by Webb [16], Iannelli [17] and Smith et al. [18].
In the modern world, the worldwide transportation leads to tremendous movement of individuals and it is inevitable that infectious diseases may be introduced into a population from outside the population. Although most of the developed countries have screening policies for new immigrants, latent tuberculosis may take long time to become infectious and latent tuberculosis individuals may travel, thus, they are usually not detected by the TB screening. Furthermore, the removed tuberculosis patients who often have higher relapse rate may travel into another region; or the infectious individuals may also travel. In [19], McCluskey et al. proposed a TB model with immigration of both latent and infective compartments. Later, In [20], Guo et al. introduced a TB model with treatment and immigration into the latent compartment. It is well known that the model will no longer have the diseasefree equilibrium and the basic reproduction number, and there will always have a unique endemic equilibrium which is globally asymptotically stable by using a global Lyapunov function. More related work can be found in [21â€“25] and references therein.
In this paper, we propose and investigate a TB model with immigration into the four compartments. We also incorporate into the continuous agedependent in latent and removed compartments. It is a generalization of model proposed in [10]. According to mathematical analysis, we show that TB always exists in a region and the endemic equilibrium is unique and globally asymptotically stable. This paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we will formulate the model. In SectionÂ 3, we show the mathematical wellposedness of our model. In SectionÂ 4, we investigate the asymptotic smoothness of the semiflow generated by our model and the existence of compact attractor. In SectionÂ 5, we show our dynamics results, including the existence and global stability of the unique endemic steady state. Some simulations and conclusion are provided in SectionÂ 6 and SectionÂ 7, respectively.
2 Model formulation
This section we devote to formulating our model.
Assume that there is constant recruitment into the susceptible and infectious compartments at rates \(\Lambda_{s}\) and \(\Lambda_{i}\), respectively. The recruitment into the latent and removed compartments with ageinclass a and b take place at rates denoted \(\Lambda_{e}(a)\) and \(\Lambda_{r}(b)\), respectively. The transfer diagram is shown in FigureÂ 1. The corresponding hybrid system of ordinary and partial differential equations is the following form:
with the boundary conditions
and the initial conditions
Note that system (2.1) considers the immigration of all compartments, which is different from system (1.1), where only considers the immigration of susceptible compartment. All parameters have the same biological meanings with system (1.1) and satisfy the following assumptions.
Assumption 2.1
Consider system (2.1), we assume that:
 (A_{1}):

All constant parameters \(\Lambda_{s},\Lambda_{i},\mu_{s},\mu _{e},\mu_{i},\mu_{r},k>0\).
 (A_{2}):

The functions \(\sigma(a),\gamma(b)\in L^{\infty}(\mathbb {R}^{+},\mathbb{R}^{+})\), and denote \(\sigma^{\mathrm{inf}}\), \(\gamma ^{\mathrm{inf}}\) and \(\sigma^{\mathrm{sup}}\), \(\gamma^{\mathrm{sup}}\) as the essential infimums and the essential supremums of Ïƒ and Î³, respectively.
 (A_{3}):

\(\sigma(a)\) and \(\gamma(b)\) are Lipschitz continuous on \(\mathbb{R}^{+}\) with Lipschitz coefficients \(M_{\sigma}\) and \(M_{\gamma}\), respectively.
 (A_{4}):

\(\int_{0}^{\infty}\sigma(a)\,da=0\) and \(\int_{0}^{\infty}\gamma(b)\,db=0\).
 (A_{5}):

\(\Lambda_{e},\Lambda_{r}\in L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{+},\mathbb{R}^{+})\), and denote \(\bar{\Lambda}_{e}=\int_{0}^{\infty}\Lambda_{e}(a)\,da\), \(\bar{\Lambda}_{r}=\int_{0}^{\infty}\Lambda_{r}(b)\,db\).
 (A_{6}):

\(\bar{\Lambda}_{e},\bar{\Lambda}_{r}\in\mathbb{R}^{+}\), and \(\bar{\Lambda}_{e}+\bar{\Lambda}_{r}>0\).
Define the space of functions X as \(X=\mathbb{R}^{+}\times L_{+}^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{+},\mathbb{R}^{+})\times\mathbb{R}^{+}\times L_{+}^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{+},\mathbb{R}^{+})\) with the norm
Following the standard theory [16], it can be verified that system (2.1) with initialboundary conditions has a unique nonnegative solution for all time. Thus, there exists a continuous semiflow associated with system (2.1), that is, \(\Phi:\mathbb{R}^{+}\times X\rightarrow X\) takes the following form:
with
3 The wellposedness of system (2.1)
This section is devoted to the positivity and boundedness of solutions.
Assume that function \(f(a,s)\) is continuous in \(\mathbb{R}^{+}\times \mathbb{R}^{+}\), then one has
which is achieved by changing the order of integration in two double integrals. This will be useful in the later proofs.
For simplification, we denote
It follows from (A_{3}) of AssumptionÂ 2.1 that
and
Similar to [16], solutions of the PDE parts are
and
Finally, we define the state space for system (2.1) as
where \(\Lambda^{*}=\Lambda_{s}+\bar{\Lambda}_{e}+{\Lambda}_{i}+\bar {\Lambda}_{r}\), \(\mu^{*}=\min\{\mu_{j},j=s,e,i,r\}\). We can prove that Î© and Î¦ have the following properties.
Proposition 3.1
Consider system (2.1), we have

(i)
Î© is positively invariant for Î¦, that is, \(\Phi (t,x_{0})\in\Omega\), for \(\forall t\geq0\) and \(x_{0}\in\Omega\);

(ii)
Î¦ is point dissipative and Î© attracts all points in X.
Proof
From (2.2), we have
Before calculating the derivative of semiflow, we first show that
Note that the last term is obtained by using (3.1). Furthermore, let \(\tau=ta\) and \(\tau=at\) in the first and second integrals on the righthand side of (3.7), respectively, one has
Then we have
Here, we put our main attentions on dealing with the last term. Following (3.1), we have
Furthermore, one has
Applying (3.9) to replace the last term of (3.8), one gets
Similarly, one can obtain
Combining (3.10)(3.11) and the first and third equations of (2.1) yields
which implies
Obviously, \(\Phi(t,x_{0})\in\Omega\) holds true for any solution of (2.1) satisfying \(x_{0}\in\Omega\) and \(t\geq0\). Thus, Î© is positively invariant for semiflow \(\{\Phi(t)\}_{t\geq0}\).
Moreover, it follows from (3.12) that \(\limsup_{t\rightarrow \infty}\\Phi(t,x_{0})\_{X}\leq{\Lambda^{*}}/{\mu^{*}}\) for any \(x_{0}\in X\). Therefore, Î¦ is point dissipative and Î© attracts all points in X. This completes the proof.â€ƒâ–¡
Combining AssumptionÂ 2.1 and PropositionÂ 3.1, we have the following two propositions.
Proposition 3.2
If \(x_{0}\in X\) and \(\ x_{0}\_{X}\leq M\) for some constant \(M\geq {\Lambda^{*}}/{\mu^{*}}\), then the following statements hold true for \(t\geq0\):

(i)
\(0\leq S(t),\int_{0}^{\infty}e(t,a)\,da,I(t),\int_{0}^{\infty}r(t,b)\,db\leq M\);

(ii)
\(e(t,0)\leq\beta M^{2}, r(t,0)\leq kM\).
Proposition 3.3
Let \(B\subset X\) be bounded. Then

(i)
\(\Phi(\mathbb{R}^{+},B)\) is bounded;

(ii)
Î¦ is eventually bounded on B;

(iii)
if \(M\geq{\Lambda^{*}}/{\mu^{*}}\) is a bound for B, then M is also a bound for \(\Phi(\mathbb{R}^{+},B)\);

(iv)
given any \(L\geq{\Lambda^{*}}/{\mu^{*}}\), there exists \(T=T(B,M)\) such that L is a bound for \(\Phi(t,B)\) whenever \(t\geq T\).
Now, we give the following proposition on the asymptotic lower bounds for system (2.1).
Proposition 3.4
If \(x_{0}\in X\), then
where \(m_{j}\), \(j=s,i,e,r\) are defined below.
Proof
It follows from the first equation of system (2.1) that
which implies that
Similarly, one has
Following (1.2), one can see that
The proof is completed.â€ƒâ–¡
4 Asymptotic smoothness
In order to obtain global properties of the semiflow \(\{\Phi(t)\} _{t\geq0}\), it is important to prove that the semiflow is asymptotically smooth.
We introduce two definitions and a useful lemma.
Definition 4.1
A function \(Y:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow X\) is called a total trajectory of Î¦ if Y satisfies \(\Phi_{s}(Y(t))=Y(t+s)\) for all \(t\in\mathbb {R}\) and \(s\geq0\).
Definition 4.2
A nonempty invariant compact set A is called the compact attractor of a class \(\mathcal{B}\) of sets if \(\operatorname{dist}(\Phi (t,B),A)\rightarrow0\) for each \(B\in\mathcal{B}\), where
Remark 4.1
For any point \(y_{0}\in A\), it follows from Definitions 4.1 and 4.2, and [18], TheoremÂ 1.40, that there exists a total trajectory \(Y(\cdot)\) with \(y(0)=y_{0}\) and \(y(t)\in A\) for all \(t\in\mathbb{R}\).
Lemma 4.1
[13] Let \(D\subseteq\mathbb{R}\). For \(j=1,2\), suppose \(f_{j}:D\rightarrow \mathbb{R}\) is a bounded Lipshitz continuous function with bound \(K_{j}\) and Lipschitz coefficient \(M_{j}\). Then the product function \(f_{1}f_{2}\) is Lipschitz with coefficient \(K_{1}M_{2}+K_{2}M_{1}\).
In order to prove the asymptotic smoothness of the semiflow, we will apply the following result, which is a special case of [18], TheoremÂ 2.46.
Lemma 4.2
If the following two conditions hold for any bounded closed set \(B\subset X\), then the semiflow \(\Phi(t,x_{0})=\Phi_{1}(t,x_{0})+\Phi _{2}(t,x_{0}):\mathbb{R}^{+}\times X\rightarrow X\) is asymptotically smooth in X.

(i)
\(\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\operatorname{diam}\Phi_{1}(t,B)=0\);

(ii)
for \(t\geq0\), \(\Phi_{2}(t,B)\) has compact closure.
The following result is used to verify (ii) of LemmaÂ 4.2, which is based on Theorem B.2 in [18].
Lemma 4.3
A set \(K\subset L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{+},\mathbb{R}^{+})\) has compact closure if and only if the following conditions hold:

(i)
\(\sup_{f\in K}\int_{0}^{\infty}f(a)\,da<\infty\);

(ii)
\(\lim_{h\rightarrow\infty}\int_{h}^{\infty}f(a)\,da\rightarrow0\) uniformly in \(f\in K\);

(iii)
\(\lim_{h\rightarrow{0^{+}}}\int_{0}^{\infty}f(a+h)f(a)\,da\rightarrow0\) uniformly in \(f\in K\);

(iv)
\(\lim_{h\rightarrow{0^{+}}}\int_{0}^{h} f(a)\,da\rightarrow0\) uniformly in \(f\in K\).
Based on Lemmas 4.2 and 4.3, we have the following theorem.
Theorem 4.1
The semiflow \(\{\Phi(t)\}_{t\geq0}\) is asymptotically smooth.
Proof
We first decompose \(\Phi:\mathbb{R}^{+}\times X\rightarrow X\) into the following two operators \(\Phi_{1}(t,X)\) and \(\Phi_{2}(t,X)\). Let \(\Phi_{1}(t,X):=(0,y_{2}(t,\cdot),0,y_{4}(t,\cdot))\) and \(\Phi_{2}(t,X):=(S(t),\tilde{y}_{2}(t,\cdot),I(t),\tilde{y}_{4}(t,\cdot ))\), where
Then we have \(\Phi(t,X)=\Phi_{1}(t,X)+\Phi_{2}(t,X)\) for all \(t\geq0\).
First, we show that \(\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\operatorname{diam}\Phi_{1}(t,B)=0\). For \(j=1,2\), let \(x_{0}^{j}=(S_{0},e_{0}^{j}(\cdot),I_{0},r_{0}^{j}(\cdot))\in B\) be two initial conditions and \(\Phi(t,x_{0}^{j})=(S^{j},e^{j}(t,\cdot),I^{j},r^{j}(t,\cdot))\) be their corresponding solutions. Thus, one has
Then
where \(\\cdot\_{1}\) denotes the standard norm on \(L^{1}\). Similarly, \(\ y_{4}^{1}(t,\cdot)y_{4}^{2}(t,\cdot)\\leq2Me^{\mu_{r}t}\). Consequently, the distance between \(\Phi_{1}(t,x_{0}^{1})\) and \(\Phi_{2}(t,x_{0}^{2})\) satisfies
which implies that \(\Phi_{1}(t,B)\leq2M (e^{\mu_{e}t}+e^{\mu _{r}t} )\), due to the arbitrariness of \(x_{0}^{j}\in B\), \(j=1,2\). Thus, \(\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\operatorname{diam}\Phi_{1}(t,B)=0\).
Now, we show that \(\Phi_{2}(t,B)\) has compact closure. According to PropositionÂ 3.3, \(S(t)\) and \(I(t)\) remain in the compact set \([0,\Lambda^{*}/\mu^{*}]\subset[0,M]\), where \(M\geq\Lambda ^{*}/\mu^{*}\) is a bound for B. Thus, it is only to show that \(\tilde {y}_{2}(t,a)\) and \(\tilde{y}_{4}(t,b)\) satisfy conditions (i)(iv) in LemmaÂ 4.3.
Now, following (3.4) and (4.2), we have
which implies that conditions (i), (ii) and (iv) in LemmaÂ 4.3 are satisfied. It suffices to verify that (iii) in LemmaÂ 4.3 holds true. For sufficiently small \(h\in(0,t)\), we have
where
Recall that \(0\leq\rho_{e}(a)\leq e^{\mu_{e}a}\leq1\) and \(\rho_{e}(a)\) is nonincreasing function with respect to a, we have
Hence, from (ii) of PropositionÂ 3.2, we yield \(H_{1}\leq\beta M^{2}h\). It follows from (i) of PropositionÂ 3.2 that \(dS(t)/dt\) and \(dI(t)/dt\) are bounded by \(M_{S}=\Lambda_{s}+\mu_{s} M+\beta M^{2}\) and \(M_{I}={\sigma}^{\mathrm{sup}}M+{\gamma}^{\mathrm{ sup}}M+(\mu_{i}+k)M\), respectively. Thus, \(S(\cdot)\) and \(I(\cdot)\) are Lipschitz continuous on \([0,\infty)\) with coefficients \(M_{S}\) and \(M_{I}\). Following LemmaÂ 4.1, one sees that \(S(\cdot)I(\cdot)\) is Lipschitz continuous on \([0,\infty)\) with coefficient \(M_{SI}=M(M_{S}+M_{I})\). Thus,
Consequently, we have
This shows that \(\int_{0}^{\infty}\tilde{y}_{2}(t,a+h)\tilde {y}_{2}(t,a)\,da\rightarrow0\) as \(h\rightarrow0\). Then \(\tilde {y}_{2}(t,a)\) satisfies condition (iii) in LemmaÂ 4.3, which implies that there exists a precompact subset \(B_{e}\subset L_{+}^{1}(\mathbb {R}^{+},\mathbb{R}^{+})\) such that \(\tilde{y}_{2}(t,a)\) remains in \(B_{e}\). Similarly, \(\tilde{y}_{4}(t,b)\) remains in a precompact subset \(B_{r}\subset L_{+}^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{+},\mathbb{R}^{+})\). Thus, \(\Phi _{2}(t,B)\subseteq[0,M]\times B_{e}\times[0,M]\times B_{r}\). Applying LemmaÂ 4.3, we can conclude that \(\Phi_{2}(t,B)\) has compact closure. Thus, two conditions of LemmaÂ 4.2 are satisfied and \(\{\Phi (t)\}_{t\geq0}\) is asymptotically smooth. This completes the proof.â€ƒâ–¡
Propositions 3.1 and 3.3 and TheoremÂ 4.1 show that Î¦ is point dissipative, eventually bounded on bounded sets, and asymptotically smooth. Thus, following [18], TheoremÂ 2.33, we have the following proposition on the existence of a global attractor.
Theorem 4.2
The semigroup \(\{\Phi(t)\}_{t\geq0}\) has a global attractor \(\mathcal {A}\) contained in X, which attracts the bounded sets of X.
5 Dynamical results
This section is devoted to the existence and global stability of the steady state.
5.1 Existence of steady state
In this subsection, we consider the existence of steady state for system (2.1). Clearly, system (2.1) has no diseasefree steady state. The steady state \((S^{*},e^{*}(\cdot),I^{*},r^{*}(\cdot))\) of system (2.1) satisfies the equalities
with the boundary conditions
It follows from the first equation of (5.1) that we have
From the second equation of (5.1) and boundary conditions (5.2), one has
Similarly, the fourth equation of (5.1) and the boundary condition \(r^{*}(0)=kI^{*}\) lead to
Inserting (5.4) and (5.5) into the third equation of (5.1), we have
where
Here, \(\theta_{r}\in[0,1]\) denotes the probability of entering the removed compartment alive and \(M_{i}>0\) (\(i=1,2\)) are defined as \(M_{1}=\int_{0}^{\infty}\sigma(a)\int_{0}^{\infty}\Lambda_{e}(s){\rho _{e}(a)}/{\rho_{e}(s)}\,ds\,da\) and \(M_{2}=\int_{0}^{\infty}\gamma(a)\int _{0}^{\infty}\Lambda_{r}(s){\rho_{r}(a)}/{\rho_{r}(s)}\,ds\,da\). Clearly, \(f(0)>0\) and \(f(\Lambda_{s}/\mu_{s})<0\). Thus, there exists a unique solution \(S^{*}\) for \(f(S^{*})=0\) in the interval \([0,\Lambda_{s}/\mu_{s}]\). It follows from equations (5.3)(5.5) that \(I^{*}\), and the functions \(e^{*}(\cdot)\) and \(r^{*}(\cdot)\) uniquely depend on \(S^{*}\). Therefore, the unique steady state \(T^{*}\) is determined. Obviously, \(S^{*}\in(0,\Lambda_{s}/\mu_{s})\) implies that \(I^{*}\), \(e^{*}(\cdot)\) and \(r^{*}(\cdot)\) are both positive. Thus, \(T^{*}\) is strictly positive. Clearly, \(\{T^{*}\}\) is an invariant bounded set.
From the above discussions, we have the following theorem.
Theorem 5.1
System (2.1) always has a unique endemic steady state \(T^{*}=(S^{*}, e^{*}(\cdot), I^{*}, r^{*}(\cdot))\), and \(T^{*}\in\mathcal{A}\).
5.2 Global stability
This subsection is devoted to showing the global stability of \(T^{*}\), which implies that the attractor \(\mathcal{A}\) only contains the unique endemic steady state.
The following lemma will be useful in the proof of our main result.
Lemma 5.1
Let \(g(x)=x1\ln x\) for each \(x\geq0\). Each solution of system (2.1) satisfies
Proof
It follows from the fact that \(g'(x)=1{1}/{x}\) and the second equation of (5.1) that we have
where \({e_{a}(t,a)}\) denotes \({\partial e(t,a)}/{\partial a}\). Similarly, we have
â€ƒâ–¡
Based on the above preparations, we show our main result.
Theorem 5.2
The unique endemic steady state \(T^{*}\) is globally asymptotically stable, and \(\mathcal{A}=\{T^{*}\}\).
Proof
Define the Lyapunov functional as follows:
where
where
Obviously, \(\omega_{e}(a),\omega_{r}(b)>0\) for \(a,b\geq0\) and \(\omega _{j}(0)=\theta_{j}\) for \(j=e,r\). The derivatives of \(\omega_{e}(a)\) and \(\omega_{r}(b)\) satisfy
Since \(\Lambda_{s}=\beta S^{*}I^{*}+\mu_{s} S^{*}\), the derivative of \(W_{s}\) along with the solutions of (2.1) is
The derivative of \(W_{e}\) along with the solutions of system (2.1) is calculated as
It follows from (A_{4}) of AssumptionÂ 2.1 that we have \(\lim_{a\rightarrow\infty}e(t,a)=0\), \(\lim_{b\rightarrow\infty}r(t,b)=0\) for \(t\geq0\). Combining the second equation of system (5.1), LemmaÂ 5.1 and (5.6), using integration by parts, we have
Note that \(\omega_{e}(0)=\theta_{e}\), \(e^{*}(0)=\beta S^{*}I^{*}\) and \(e(t,0)=\beta SI\), thus
Similarly, combining \(\omega_{r}(0)=\theta_{r}\), \(r^{*}(0)=kI^{*}\) and \(r(t,0)=kI\) yields the derivative of \(W_{r}\) along with the solutions of system (2.1) as follows:
Applying \(\int_{0}^{\infty}\sigma(a)e^{*}(a)\,da+\int_{0}^{\infty}\gamma (b)r^{*}(b)\,db=(\mu_{i}+k)I^{*}\), we see that the derivative of \(W_{i}\) along with the solutions of system (2.1) has the following form:
Summarizing (5.7)(5.10), we have
where
Note that
and
Thus, we have
Consequently, we derive
which implies that \({dV}/{dt}\leq0\) holds true. Furthermore, the strict equality holds only if \({(S,e(\cdot),I,r(\cdot))}={T^{*}}\). It is easy to obtain that the largest invariant subset of \(\{(S,e(\cdot ),I,r(\cdot)):{dV}/{dt}=0\}\) is \(\{T^{*}\}\subset\Omega\), and the LyapunovLaSalle invariance principle implies that the unique endemic steady state \(T^{*}\) is globally asymptotically stable.â€ƒâ–¡
6 Numerical simulations
In this section, we give some numerical simulations to show the epidemiological insights. In our application, we provide simulations of system (2.1) by using tuberculosis data from [4, 20, 26â€“28] to investigate the effects of immigration level on disease transmission. Here, we take
Furthermore, we set the maximum age for the upper bound of latent and relapse age as 10 years. Then
Thus, the averages of \(\sigma(a)\) and \(\gamma(b)\) are 0.003 and 0.01, which are the same as in [28] and [27], respectively. Set \(\Lambda_{s}=7.5\), \(\Lambda_{i}=0.2\) and
Hence, \(\bar{\Lambda}_{e}=0.8\) and \(\bar{\Lambda}_{r}=1.5\). We have \(\Lambda^{*}=10\).
6.1 The long time behaviors of system (2.1)
First, TheoremÂ 5.2 asserts that the unique endemic steady state \(T^{*}\) is globally asymptotically stable. This fact is revealed by FigureÂ 2. From FigureÂ 2, one can observe that the levels of all compartmental individuals tend to stable values, where \(S(t)\), \(e(t,a)\), \(I(t)\) and \(r(t,b)\) converge to the positive steady states \(S^{*}\), \(e^{*}(a)\), \(I^{*}\) and \(r^{*}(b)\). Easily, we can get \(S^{*}=1.4\times10^{4}\) and \(I^{*}=1.9\times10^{4}\). Obviously, it follows from FigureÂ 2 that the numbers of the exposed and removed compartments are the distribution functions of a and b, respectively, particularly, \(e^{*}(0)=1.96\times10^{4}\), \(e^{*}(10)=1.26\times10^{4}\) and \(r^{*}(0)=1\text{,}116\), \(r^{*}(10)=693\). Furthermore, we show that the distribution of \(e(t,a)\) and \(r(t,a)\) for all age and at \(a=5\). FigureÂ 3 shows that this is a stationary distribution along all time.
6.2 The age distribution of the latent and removed populations
Then we observe how the age distribution change the prevalence of the latent and removed populations. It follows from FigureÂ 4 that with the increasing of age, the latent and removed populations prevalence decrease.
6.3 The stationary distribution
Finally, we are interested to observe that whether the stationary distribution exists or not. The numerical simulation is performed over a range of age, and then the stationary distribution of the latent and removed populations is obtained in FigureÂ 5 for \(t\in[0,60]\). From the color bar, we can observe that the distribution patterns of the latent and removed populations remain unchanged. Those distributions which do not change with time are called stationary patterns.
7 Conclusion and discussion
In this paper, we proposed and investigated a class of agestructured SEIR epidemic model with immigration. We show that, for all parameter values, the endemic steady state is unique and globally asymptotically stable by using the Lyapunov functional.
All simulation results show that the immigration of individuals leads to the insight that the TB cannot be fully eliminated from the population and will eventually reach a steady endemic level. The age of latent and removed leads to stationary patterns. This implies that TB will exist if either the immigration of population is allowed or there are TB infections in the region. Thus, in order to eradicate the TB, there are two choices: one is to prohibit the immigration of infected individuals, which is difficult to achieve; the other is to clear away the TB in any one region.
References
Daniel, TM, Bates, JH, Downes, KA: History of Tuberculosis: Pathogenesis, Protection, and Control. Am. Soc. Microbiol., Washington (1994)
World Health Organization: Global tuberculosis report 2012, Geneva, Switzerland (2012)
Bowong, S, Tewa, JJ: Global analysis of a dynamical model for transmission of tuberculosis with a general contact rate. Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 15(11), 36213631 (2010)
Ziv, E, Daley, CL, Blower, SM: Early therapy for latent tuberculosis infection. Am. J. Epidemiol. 153(4), 381385 (2001)
Feng, Z, Iannelli, M, Milner, F: A twostrain tuberculosis model with age of infection. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 62(5), 16341656 (2002)
Liu, J, Zhang, T: Global stability for a tuberculosis model. Math. Comput. Model. 54(1), 836845 (2011)
Yang, Y, Li, J, Zhou, Y: Global stability of two tuberculosis models with treatment and selfcure. Rocky Mt. J. Math. 42(4), 13671386 (2012)
Martin, SW: Livestock Disease Eradication: Evaluation of the Cooperative StateFederal Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Program. National Academies Washington (1994)
van den Driessche, P, Zou, X: Modeling relapse in infectious diseases. Math. Biosci. 207(1), 89103 (2007)
Liu, L, Wang, J, Liu, X: Global stability of an SEIR epidemic model with agedependent latency and relapse. Nonlinear Anal., Real World Appl. 24, 1835 (2015)
Magal, P: Compact attractors for time periodic agestructured population models. Electron. J. Differ. Equ. 2001, 65 (2001)
Huang, G, Liu, X, Takeuchi, Y: Lyapunov functions and global stability for agestructured HIV infection model. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 72(1), 2538 (2012)
McCluskey, CC: Global stability for an SEI epidemiological model with continuous agestructure in the exposed and infectious classes. Math. Biosci. Eng. 9(4), 819841 (2012)
Wang, J, Zhang, R, Kuniya, T: Global dynamics for a class of ageinfection HIV models with nonlinear infection rate. J.Â Math. Anal. Appl. 432(1), 289313 (2015)
Wang, L, Liu, Z, Zhang, X: Global dynamics for an agestructured epidemic model with media impact and incomplete vaccination. Nonlinear Anal., Real World Appl. 32, 136158 (2016)
Webb, GF: Theory of Nonlinear AgeDependent Population Dynamics. Dekker, New York (1985)
Iannelli, M: Mathematical Theory of AgeStructured Population Dynamics. Giardini Editori e Stampatori, Pisa (1995)
Smith, HL, Thieme, HR: Dynamical Systems and Population Persistence. Am. Math. Soc., Providence (2011)
McCluskey, CC, van den Driessche, P: Global analysis of two tuberculosis models. J. Dyn. Differ. Equ. 16(1), 139166 (2004)
Guo, H, Li, MY: Global stability of the endemic equilibrium of a tuberculosis model with immigration and treatment. Can. Appl. Math. Q. 19, 118 (2011)
McCluskey, CC: Global stability for an SEI model of infectious disease with age structure and immigration of infecteds. Math. Biosci. Eng. 13(2), 381400 (2016)
Wang, L, Wang, X: influence of temporary migration on the transmission of infectious diseases in a migrantsâ€™ home village. J. Theor. Biol. 300, 100109 (2012)
Guo, H, Wu, J: Persistent high incidence of tuberculosis among immigrants in a lowincidence country: impact of immigrants with early or late latency. Math. Biosci. Eng. 8(2), 695709 (2011)
Zhang, J, Li, J, Ma, Z: Global dynamics of an seir epidemic model with immigration of different compartments. Acta Math. Sci. 26(3), 551567 (2006)
Brauer, F, van den Driessche, P: Models for transmission of disease with immigration of infectives. Math. Biosci. 171(2), 143154 (2001)
Grzybowski, S, Enarson, DA: The fate of cases of pulmonary tuberculosis under various treatment programmes. Bull. Int. Union Against Tuberc. 53(2), 7075 (1978)
Styblo, K: Tuberculosis control and surveillance. Recent Adv. Respir. Med. 4, 77108 (1986)
Comstock, GW: Epidemiology of tuberculosis 13. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 125(3P2), 815 (1982)
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos.Â 11601293 and 11331009, Shanxi Scientific Data Sharing Platform for Animal Diseases (201605D121014), and the science and technology innovation team of Shanxi province (201605D13104406). We are very grateful to the anonymous referees and editor for their careful reading, valuable comments and helpful suggestions, which have helped to improve the presentation of this work significantly.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authorsâ€™ contributions
The authors contributed equally to this paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Publisherâ€™s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Liu, L., Ren, X. & Jin, Z. Threshold dynamical analysis on a class of agestructured tuberculosis model with immigration of population. Adv Differ Equ 2017, 258 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s136620171295y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s136620171295y