Virus dynamics model with intracellular delays and immune response

  • -->
    In this paper, we incorporate an extra logistic growth term for uninfected CD4$^+$ T-cells into an HIV-1 infection model with bothintracellular delay and immune response delay which was studied by Pawelek et al. in [26]. First, we proved that if the basicreproduction number $R_0<1 then="" the="" infection-free="" steady="" state="" is="" globally="" asymptotically="" stable="" second="" when="" r_0="">1$, then the system is uniformly persistent, suggesting that the clearance or the uniform persistence of the virus is completely determined by $R_0 $. Furthermore, given both the two delays are zero, then the infected steady state is asymptotically stable when the intrinsic growth rate of the extra logistic term is sufficiently small. When the two delays are not zero, we showed that both the immune response delay and the intracellular delay may destabilize the infected steady state by leading to Hopf bifurcation and stable periodic oscillations, on which we analyzed the direction of the Hopf bifurcationas well as the stability of the bifurcating periodic orbits by normal form and center manifold theory introduced by Hassard et al[15]. Third, we engaged numerical simulations to explore the rich dynamics like chaotic oscillations, complicated bifurcationdiagram of viral load due to the logistic term of target cells and the two time delays.

    Citation: Haitao Song, Weihua Jiang, Shengqiang Liu. Virus dynamics model with intracellular delays and immune response[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2015, 12(1): 185-208. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2015.12.185

    Related Papers:

    [1] Zhongwei Cao, Jian Zhang, Huishuang Su, Li Zu . Threshold dynamics of a stochastic general SIRS epidemic model with migration. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(6): 11212-11237. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023497
    [2] Thomas Torku, Abdul Khaliq, Fathalla Rihan . SEINN: A deep learning algorithm for the stochastic epidemic model. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(9): 16330-16361. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023729
    [3] Yang Chen, Wencai Zhao . Dynamical analysis of a stochastic SIRS epidemic model with saturating contact rate. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(5): 5925-5943. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020316
    [4] Tingting Xue, Xiaolin Fan, Zhiguo Chang . Dynamics of a stochastic SIRS epidemic model with standard incidence and vaccination. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(10): 10618-10636. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022496
    [5] Yoichi Enatsu, Yukihiko Nakata . Stability and bifurcation analysis of epidemic models with saturated incidence rates: An application to a nonmonotone incidence rate. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2014, 11(4): 785-805. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2014.11.785
    [6] Baoxiang Zhang, Yongli Cai, Bingxian Wang, Weiming Wang . Dynamics and asymptotic profiles of steady states of an SIRS epidemic model in spatially heterogenous environment. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(1): 893-909. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020047
    [7] Helong Liu, Xinyu Song . Stationary distribution and extinction of a stochastic HIV/AIDS model with nonlinear incidence rate. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(1): 1650-1671. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024072
    [8] Fang Zhang, Wenzhe Cui, Yanfei Dai, Yulin Zhao . Bifurcations of an SIRS epidemic model with a general saturated incidence rate. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(11): 10710-10730. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022501
    [9] Joan Ponce, Horst R. Thieme . Can infectious diseases eradicate host species? The effect of infection-age structure. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(10): 18717-18760. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023830
    [10] Mahmudul Bari Hridoy . An exploration of modeling approaches for capturing seasonal transmission in stochastic epidemic models. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2025, 22(2): 324-354. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2025013
  • In this paper, we incorporate an extra logistic growth term for uninfected CD4$^+$ T-cells into an HIV-1 infection model with bothintracellular delay and immune response delay which was studied by Pawelek et al. in [26]. First, we proved that if the basicreproduction number $R_0<1 then="" the="" infection-free="" steady="" state="" is="" globally="" asymptotically="" stable="" second="" when="" r_0="">1$, then the system is uniformly persistent, suggesting that the clearance or the uniform persistence of the virus is completely determined by $R_0 $. Furthermore, given both the two delays are zero, then the infected steady state is asymptotically stable when the intrinsic growth rate of the extra logistic term is sufficiently small. When the two delays are not zero, we showed that both the immune response delay and the intracellular delay may destabilize the infected steady state by leading to Hopf bifurcation and stable periodic oscillations, on which we analyzed the direction of the Hopf bifurcationas well as the stability of the bifurcating periodic orbits by normal form and center manifold theory introduced by Hassard et al[15]. Third, we engaged numerical simulations to explore the rich dynamics like chaotic oscillations, complicated bifurcationdiagram of viral load due to the logistic term of target cells and the two time delays.


    Mathematical models describing the population dynamics of infectious diseases have been playing an important role in better understanding of epidemiological patterns and disease control for a long time (see [1,2,3,4]). Some infectious diseases confer temporary or permanent immunity. For some diseases, such as cholera, pertussis and influenza, temporary immunity may disappear after some time. And recovered individuals will become susceptible after losing the temporary immunity. This kind of diseases can be modeled by SIRS models (see [5,6]). In addition, for some bacterial agent diseases such as meningitis and venereal diseases, recovery cannot generate immunity for a long time. Infected individuals may recover after some treatments and go back directly to the susceptible class on account of the presence of temporary antibodies. In [6], the authors investigated the following SIRS epidemic model with a nonlinear incidence $ \beta Sf(I) $ and transfer from the infected class to the susceptible class

    $ {˙S(t)=ΛμS(t)βS(t)f(I(t))+γ1I(t)+δR(t),˙I(t)=βS(t)f(I(t))(μ+γ1+γ2+α)I(t),˙R(t)=γ2I(t)(μ+δ)R(t),
    $
    (1.1)

    with the initial conditions

    $ S(0)=S00,I(0)=I00,R(0)=R00,
    $
    (1.2)

    where $ S(t) $, $ I(t) $ and $ R(t) $ are respectively the number of susceptible, infectious and recovered individuals at time $ t $. $ \Lambda $ is the recruitment rate of susceptible individuals, $ \mu $ is the natural death rate, $ \alpha $ is the mortality caused by the disease, $ \gamma_{1} $ denotes the transfer rate from the infected class to the susceptible class, $ \gamma_{2} $ is the recovery rate of the infective individuals, $ \delta $ is the rate constant for loss of immunity. Suppose that $ \Lambda $ and $ \mu $ are positive, while $ \alpha $, $ \gamma_{1} $, $ \gamma_{2} $ and $ \delta $ are nonnegative. $ f $ is a real locally Lipschitz function on $ \mathbb{R}_{+} = [0, \infty) $ satisfying $ f(0) = 0 $, $ f(I) > 0 $, $ f(I)/I $ is nonincreasing for $ I > 0 $ and $ \lim_{I\rightarrow0^{+}}\frac{f(I)}{I} = f'(0) > 0 $.

    Denote $ \mathbb{R}_{+}^{3} = \{(x, y, z)\in\mathbb{R}^{3}:x > 0, y > 0, z > 0\} $. From [6], model (1.1) always has a disease-free equilibrium $ E_{0} = (S_{0}, I_{0}, R_{0}) = (\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}, 0, 0) $. By using the next generation matrix method, [6] obtained the basic reproduction number $ \mathcal{R}_{0} = \frac{\Lambda\beta f'(0)}{\mu(\mu+\gamma_{1}+\gamma_{2}+\alpha)} $. Further, $ E_{0} $ is globally asymptotically stable in $ D $ if $ \mathcal{R}_{0} < 1 $, where $ D = \{(S, I, R)\in\mathbb{R}_{+}^{3}: S+I+R\leq\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}\} $. If $ \mathcal{R}_{0} > 1 $, there exists a globally asymptotically stable endemic equilibrium $ E^{*} = (S^{*}, I^{*}, R^{*}) $.

    However, model (1.1) is just a deterministic model. In the real world, epidemic models are always affected by the environmental noise. Stochastic models may be a more appropriate way of modeling epidemics in many circumstances (see [7,8,9,10]). In [11,12,13], the authors investigated the stochastic SIS epidemic models. In [14,15,16,17,18,19,20], the authors investigated the stochastic SIRS epidemic models. In this paper, we investigate the following stochastic SIRS epidemic model

    $ {dS=[ΛμSβSf(I)+γ1I+δR]dtσSf(I)dB(t),dI=[βSf(I)(μ+γ1+γ2+α)I]dt+σSf(I)dB(t),dR=[γ2I(μ+δ)R]dt,
    $
    (1.3)

    with initial values $ S_{0} > 0, I_{0} > 0, R_{0} > 0 $. Here we consider random perturbation in the environment, which is assumed to be affected by the contact rate, so that $ \beta\rightarrow\beta+\sigma\dot{B}(t) $, where $ B(t) $ is a standard Brownian motions defined on the compete probability space $ (\Omega, \mathcal{F}, \mathbb{P}) $ with a filtration $ \{\mathcal{F}_{t}\}_{t\geq0} $ satisfying the usual conditions (i.e. it is right continuous and $ \mathcal{F}_{0} $ contains all $ \mathbb{P} $-null sets). $ \sigma^{2} $ represents the intensity of $ B(t) $. Other parameters are defined as system (1.1). Model (1.3) covers many existing stochastic models in [6,9,21,22,23] as special cases. For example, an epidemic model with relapse and bilinear incidence was formulated in [9]. In [21], the authors investigated the dynamics of a stochastic SIR epidemic model with saturated incidence. In [22], extinction and persistence of a stochastic SIRS epidemic model with saturated incidence rate and transfer from infectious to susceptible were considered. In [23], the authors proposed a class of stochastic SIRS epidemic models with nonlinear incidence

    $ {dS=[ΛμSβh(S)f(I)+δR]dtσh(S)f(I)dB(t),dI=[βh(S)f(I)(μ+γ+α)I]dt+σh(S)f(I)dB(t),dR=[γI(μ+δ)R]dt,
    $
    (1.4)

    where $ h(S) $ is continuously differentiable and monotonically increasing with respect to $ S $, $ h(0) = 0 $ and for any constant $ l > 0 $, $ M_{l}: = \sup_{0 < S\leq l}\frac{h(S)}{S} < \infty $; $ f(I) $ is nonnegative and twice continuously differentiable, $ f(I)/I $ is monotonically decreasing with respect to $ I $, $ f(0) = 0 $ and $ f'(0) > 0 $. Other parameters are defined as those of system (1.3). In [23], the sufficient conditions for the extinction and persistence of the disease for model (1.4) were discussed. Compared with model (1.3), model (1.4) does not include the transfer from infectious to susceptible, although the incidence rate is more general.

    Denote $ a\wedge b = \min\{a, b\} $ for $ a, b\in \mathbb{R} $ and $ \mathbb{E}(X) $ represents the exception of random variable $ X $. Throughout this paper, we give the following assumptions.

    $ {\rm (H_1)} $ $ f(0) = 0 $, $ f(I) > 0 $ holds for $ I > 0 $ and $ f $ is a real locally Lipschitz function on $ \mathbb{R}_{+} $;

    $ {\rm (H_2)} $ $ f(I)/I $ is nonincreasing on $ (0, +\infty) $ and $ f'(0) > 0 $;

    $ {\rm (H_3)} $ There is a constant $ \vartheta > 0 $, such that

    $ |f(x1)/x1f(x2)/x2|ϑ|x1x2|foranyx1,x2(0,Λ/μ].
    $

    One can easily see from $ {\rm (H_2)} $ that

    $ f(I)f(0)IforIR+.
    $
    (1.5)

    Our general results can be applied to some specific forms of the incidence rate, for instance:

    (ⅰ) linear type: $ f(I) = I $ (see [9]);

    (ⅱ) saturated incidence rate: $ f(I) = \frac{I}{1+aI} $ (see [21,22]);

    (ⅲ) non-monotonic incidence rate: $ f(I) = \frac{I}{1+aI^{2}} $ (see [24]);

    (ⅳ) incidence rate with "media coverage": $ f(I) = Ie^{-mI} $, where $ m $ is a positive constant (see [25]);

    (ⅴ) incidence rate with "media coverage": $ f(I) = (1-\frac{\widetilde{\beta}I}{\beta(m+I)})I $, where $ m, \beta, \widetilde{\beta} $ are all positive constants and $ \beta > \widetilde{\beta} $ (see [26]).

    Our aim is to investigate how white noise affects the spread of disease, as described by model (1.3). The remaining part of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, a unique global positive solution of stochastic model (1.3) with any positive initial value is proved. Sufficient conditions for disease extinction and persistence in the mean are given in Sections 3 and 4, respectively. In addition, we discuss the relationship between $ \mathcal{R}_{0} $ and $ \mathcal{R}_{s} $ for different values of white noise intensity $ \sigma^{2} $, and summarize a useful criterion for the extinction and persistence of the disease of model (1.3). In Section 5, some examples and numerical simulations are provided to illustrate the theoretical results. The paper ends with a conclusion that the intensity of noise plays an important role in epidemic dynamics.

    Since $ S(t) $, $ I(t) $ and $ R(t) $ in model (1.3) are respectively the numbers of the susceptible individuals, infected individuals and recovered individuals at time $ t $, they should be non-negative. Therefore, we are only interested in its positive solutions. In this section, we show that model (1.3) has a unique global positive solution with positive initial value by using the Lyapunov analysis method.

    Theorem 1. Suppose that $ ({H_{1}}) $ and $ ({H_{2}}) $ hold. Model (1.3) has a unique global positive solution $ (S(t), I(t), R(t)) $ on $ [0, \infty) $ for any $ (S_{0}, I_{0}, R_{0})\in\mathbb{R}_{+}^{3} $, that is, the solution will remain in $ \mathbb{R}_{+}^{3} $ with probability one.

    Proof. From $ ({\rm H_{1}}) $, it is easy to show that the coefficients of (1.3) are locally Lipschitz continuous. Thus, for any given initial value $ (S_{0}, I_{0}, R_{0})\in\mathbb{R}_{+}^{3} $, there is a unique maximal local solution $ (S(t), I(t), R(t)) $ on $ [0, \tau_{e}) $, where $ \tau_{e} $ is the explosion time. Now we show $ \tau_{e} = \infty $ a.s. Let $ n_{0} > 0 $ be sufficiently large such that $ S_{0}, I_{0} $ and $ R_{0} $ all lie within the interval $ (\frac{1}{n_{0}}, n_{0}) $. For each integer $ n\geq n_{0} $, define the stopping time

    $ τn=inf{t[0,τe):min{S,I,R}1normax{S,I,R}n},
    $

    where throughout this paper, we set $ \inf\emptyset = \infty $. Clearly, $ \tau_{n} $ is increasing as $ n\rightarrow\infty $. Let $ \tau_{\infty} = \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\tau_{n} $. Thus $ \tau_{\infty}\leq\tau_{e} $ a.s. If we can show that $ \tau_{\infty} = \infty $ a.s., then $ \tau_{e} = \infty $ and $ (S(t), I(t), R(t))\in\mathbb{R}_{+}^{3} $ a.s. for all $ t\geq0 $.

    Now, we show that $ \tau_{\infty} = \infty $ a.s. Otherwise, there is a pair of constants $ T > 0 $ and $ \varepsilon\in(0, 1) $ such that $ \mathbb{P}\{\tau_{\infty}\leq T\} > \varepsilon $. Hence, for all $ n\geq n_{0} $

    $ P(Ωn)ε,
    $
    (2.1)

    where $ \Omega_{n} = \{\omega\in\Omega:\tau_{n}(\omega)\leq T\} $. Moreover, for any $ n\geq n_{0} $ and $ t\leq\tau_{n} $,

    $ d[S(t)+I(t)+R(t)][Λμ(S(t)+I(t)+R(t))]dt,
    $

    which implies

    $ S(t)+I(t)+R(t){Λμ,ifS0+I0+R0Λμ,S0+I0+R0,ifS0+I0+R0>Λμ.
    $

    Denote $ K = \max\big\{\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}, \; S_{0}+I_{0}+R_{0}\big\} $. Then

    $ S(t)+I(t)+R(t)K
    $
    (2.2)

    for any $ t\leq\tau_{n} $. Define a $ C^{2} $-function $ V:\mathbb{R}_{+}^{3}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{+} $ by

    $ V(S,I,R)=(S1lnS)+(I1lnI)+(R1lnR).
    $

    For any $ n\geq n_{0} $, the It$ \hat{o} $ formula shows that

    $ EV(S(τnT),I(τnT),R(τnT))=V(S0,I0,R0)+EτnT0LV(S(s),I(s),R(s))ds,
    $
    (2.3)

    where $ LV:\mathbb{R}_{+}^{3}\rightarrow\mathbb{R} $ is defined by

    $ LV(S,I,R)=(11S)(ΛμSβSf(I)+γ1I+δR)+(11I)(βSf(I)(μ+γ1+γ2+α)I)+(11R)(γ2I(μ+δ)R)+σ2f2(I)2+σ2S2f2(I)2I2=Λ+μ+(μ+γ1+γ2+α)+(μ+δ)+βf(I)(μ+α)I+σ2f2(I)2+σ2S2f2(I)2I2ΛSγ1ISδRSγ2IRβSf(I)IμSμR.
    $

    From (1.5) and (2.2), for any $ 0\leq t\leq \tau_{n}\wedge T $

    $ LV(S,I,R)Λ+μ+(μ+γ1+γ2+α)+(μ+δ)+βf(0)I+σ22I2+σ22S2Λ+μ+(μ+γ1+γ2+α)+(μ+δ)+βf(0)K+σ2K2=:M
    $

    Thus, from (2.3), it follows that

    $ EV(S(τnT),I(τnT),R(τnT))V(S0,I0,R0)+ME(τnT)V(S0,I0,R0)+MT,
    $

    for any $ n\geq n_{0} $. Note that for every $ \omega\in\Omega_{n} $, there exists $ S(\tau_{n}, \omega) $, $ I(\tau_{n}, \omega) $ or $ R(\tau_{n}, \omega) $ that equals either $ 1/n $ or $ n $. Hence

    $ V(S(τn,ω),I(τn,ω),R(τn,ω))(n1lnn)(1n1+lnn).
    $

    It follows from (2.1) that

    $ V(S0,I0,R0)+MTE[IΩn(ω)V(S(τn,ω),I(τn,ω),R(τn,ω))]ε[(n1lnn)(1n1+lnn)],
    $

    where $ I_{\Omega_{n}} $ is the indicator function of $ \Omega_{n} $. Letting $ n\rightarrow\infty $ leads to the contradiction

    $ >V(S0,I0,R0)+MT=,
    $

    therefore we have $ \tau_{\infty} = \infty $ a.s. The proof is therefore complete.

    Remark 1. Theorem 1 shows that for any initial value $ (S_{0}, I_{0}, R_{0})\in\mathbb{R}_{+}^{3} $, model (1.3) has a unique global solution $ (S(t), I(t), R(t))\in\mathbb{R}_{+}^{3} $ a.s. In addition, it follows from model (1.3) that

    $ d[S(t)+I(t)+R(t)]=[Λμ(S(t)+I(t)+R(t))αI(t)]dt[Λμ(S(t)+I(t)+R(t))]dt.
    $

    Thus, $ S(t)+I(t)+R(t)\leq\Big(S_{0}+I_{0}+R_{0}-\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}\Big)e^{-\mu t}+\frac{\Lambda}{\mu} $, which implies

    $ lim supt(S(t)+I(t)+R(t))Λμ.
    $

    Moreover, if $ S_{0}+I_{0}+R_{0}\leq\frac{\Lambda}{\mu} $, then $ S(t)+I(t)+R(t)\leq\frac{\Lambda}{\mu} $ a.s.. Therefore, the region

    $ D={(S,I,R)R3+:S+I+RΛμ}
    $

    is a positively invariant set of model (1.3).

    For simplicity, we introduce the notations $ X(t) = S(t)+I(t)+R(t) $, $ \langle x(t)\rangle = \frac{1}{t}\int_{0}^{t}x(s){\rm d}s $.

    One of the main concerns in epidemiology is how we can regulate the disease dynamics so that the disease will be eradicated in a long term. In this section, we provide the sufficient conditions for extinction of the disease in model (1.3). Denote

    $ Rs=Λβf(0)μ(μ+γ1+γ2+α)Λ2σ2(f(0))22μ2(μ+γ1+γ2+α),Φ(x)=σ22x2+βx(μ+γ1+γ2+α).
    $

    For model (1.3), we give the following conditions.

    $ {\rm(C_1)} $ $ \mathcal{R}_{s} < 1 $, $ \sigma^{2}\leq\frac{\beta\mu}{\Lambda f'(0)} $ and $ \sigma^{2}\leq\frac{\beta\mu}{\Lambda f'(0)}\cdot\frac{\mathcal{R}_{0}}{2} $;

    $ {\rm(C_2)} $ $ \mathcal{R}_{s} < 1 $, $ \frac{\beta\mu}{\Lambda f'(0)}\cdot\frac{\mathcal{R}_{0}}{2} < \sigma^{2} < \frac{\beta\mu}{\Lambda f'(0)} $;

    $ {\rm(C_3)} $ $ \mathcal{R}_{s} < 1 $, $ \sigma^{2}\geq\frac{\beta\mu}{\Lambda f'(0)} $ and $ \sigma^{2} > \frac{\beta\mu}{\Lambda f'(0)}\cdot\frac{\mathcal{R}_{0}}{2} $;

    $ {\rm(C_4)} $ $ \mathcal{R}_{s}\geq1 $, $ \sigma^{2} > \frac{\beta\mu}{\Lambda f'(0)}\cdot\frac{\mathcal{R}_{0}}{2} $.

    In addition, denote $ A_{1} = (\mu+\gamma_{1}+\gamma_{2}+\alpha)(\mathcal{R}_{s}-1) $, $ A_{2} = -\Big[(\mu+\gamma_{1}+\gamma_{2}+\alpha)-\frac{\beta^{2}}{2\sigma^{2}}\Big] $.

    Theorem 2. Suppose that $ ({H_{1}}) $ and $ ({H_{2}}) $ hold. Let $ (S(t), I(t), R(t)) $ be the solution of model (1.3) with any given initial condition $ (S_{0}, I_{0}, R_{0})\in\mathbb{R}_{+}^{3} $.

    (i) If $ {(C_1)} $ holds, then $ \limsup_{t\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\ln I(t)}{t}\leq A_{1} < 0\; \; \; a.s. $

    (ii) If $ {(C_2)} $ holds, then $ \limsup_{t\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\ln I(t)}{t}\leq \min\{A_{1}, A_{2}\} < 0\; \; \; a.s. $

    (iii) If $ {(C_3)} $ or $ {(C_4)} $ holds, then $ \limsup_{t\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\ln I(t)}{t}\leq A_{2} < 0\; \; \; a.s. $

    Furthermore,

    $ limtS(t)=Λμ,limtI(t)=0,limtR(t)=0a.s.
    $

    Proof. Applying It$ \hat{o} $ formula to the second equation of model (1.3) leads to

    $ dlnI(t)=[βSf(I)I(μ+γ1+γ2+α)σ22(Sf(I)I)2]dt+σSf(I)IdB(t).
    $

    Integrating both sides of the above equation from $ 0 $ to $ t $, yields

    $ lnI(t)=t0[βSf(I)I(μ+γ1+γ2+α)σ22(Sf(I)I)2]ds+t0σSf(I)IdB(s)+lnI0=t0Φ(Sf(I)I)ds+M1(t)+lnI0,
    $
    (3.1)

    where $ M_{1}(t) = \int_{0}^{t}\frac{\sigma Sf(I)}{I}{\rm d}B(s) $.

    Let us discuss three cases separately.

    Case 1. Assume that $ \mathcal{R}_{s} < 1 $ and $ \sigma^{2} < \frac{\beta\mu}{\Lambda f'(0)} $. Then $ \frac{\Lambda f'(0)}{\mu} < \frac{\beta}{\sigma^{2}} $ and $ \Phi(\frac{\Lambda f'(0)}{\mu}) = (\mu+\gamma_{1}+\gamma_{2}+\alpha)(\mathcal{R}_{s}-1) < 0 $. For any $ 0 < \varepsilon < \frac{\beta}{\sigma^{2}f'(0)}-\frac{\Lambda}{\mu} $ sufficiently small, we have $ (\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}+\varepsilon)f'(0) < \frac{\beta}{\sigma^{2}} $ and $ \Phi\Big((\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}+\varepsilon)f'(0)\Big) < 0 $. From Remark 1, for any $ \varepsilon > 0 $, there exists a constant $ T = T(\varepsilon) > 0 $ such that $ S(t)\leq\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}+\varepsilon $ for all $ t > T $. Then it follows from (1.5) that

    $ Φ(Sf(I)I)Φ(f(0)S)Φ(f(0)(Λμ+ε))<0.
    $

    Substituting this into (3.1), we have

    $ lnI(t)t=1tT0Φ(Sf(I)I)ds+1ttTΦ(Sf(I)I)ds+M1(t)t+lnI0t1tT0Φ(Sf(I)I)ds+1ttTΦ(f(0)(Λμ+ε))ds+M1(t)t+lnI0t=1tT0Φ(Sf(I)I)ds+Φ(f(0)(Λμ+ε))(1Tt)+M1(t)t+lnI0t.
    $
    (3.2)

    Clearly, $ M_{1}(t) $ is a real-valued continuous local martingale vanishing at time $ 0 $ and

    $ M1,M1t=T0[σSf(I)I]2ds+tT[σSf(I)I]2dsT0[σSf(I)I]2ds+σ2(f(0))2(Λμ+ε)2(tT).
    $

    Note that

    $ lim suptM1,M1ttσ2(f(0))2(Λμ+ε)2<,
    $

    then, from the strong law of large numbers (see [27]), it follows that

    $ limtM1(t)t=limt1tt0σSf(I)IdB(s)=0a.s.
    $
    (3.3)

    From (3.2) and (3.3), we have

    $ lim suptlnI(t)tΦ(f(0)(Λμ+ε))<0a.s.
    $

    By the continuity of $ \Phi(t) $ and the arbitrariness of $ \varepsilon $, we obtain

    $ lim suptlnI(t)tΦ(Λf(0)μ)=(μ+γ1+γ2+α)(Rs1)<0a.s.
    $

    Case 2. Assume that $ \mathcal{R}_{s} < 1 $ and $ \sigma^{2} = \frac{\beta\mu}{\Lambda f'(0)} $. Then $ \frac{\Lambda f'(0)}{\mu} = \frac{\beta}{\sigma^{2}} $ and $ \Phi\Big(\frac{Sf(I)}{I}\Big)\leq\Phi\Big(\frac{\Lambda f'(0)}{\mu}\Big) < 0. $ The following proof is similar to that of Case 1.

    Case 3. Assume that $ \sigma^{2} > \frac{\beta\mu}{\Lambda f'(0)}\cdot\frac{\mathcal{R}_{0}}{2} $. Since

    $ Φ(x)=σ22(xβσ2)2+β22σ2(μ+γ1+γ2+α)[(μ+γ1+γ2+α)β22σ2].
    $

    Substituting this into (3.1), we have

    $ lnI(t)t[(μ+γ1+γ2+α)β22σ2]+M1(t)t+lnI0t.
    $
    (3.4)

    This, together with (3.3), yields

    $ lim suptlnI(t)t[(μ+γ1+γ2+α)β22σ2]<0a.s..
    $

    From the proofs of Cases 1-3, it is easy to see that conclusions (ⅰ)-(ⅲ) hold. Further, if one of conditions $ (\rm C_1) $–$ (\rm C_4) $ holds, then

    $ limtI(t)=0a.s.
    $
    (3.5)

    That is to say, the disease $ I(t) $ dies out with probability one.

    Next, we show $ \lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}R(t) = 0 $ a.s. Let $ \Omega_{1} = \{\omega\in\Omega:\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}I(t, \omega) = 0\} $, then (3.5) implies $ \mathbb{P}(\Omega_{1}) = 1 $. Hence, for any $ \omega\in\Omega_{1} $ and any constant $ \varepsilon_{1} > 0 $, there exists a constant $ T_{1} = T_{1}(\omega, \varepsilon_{1}) > 0 $ such that for any $ t\geq T_{1} $

    $ I(t,ω)ε1.
    $
    (3.6)

    Substituting this into the third equation of model (1.3), we obtain

    $ dR(t,ω)[γ2ε1(μ+δ)R(t,ω)]dt,ωΩ1,tT1.
    $

    Then, from the comparison theorem, it follows that

    $ lim suptR(t,ω)γ2ε1μ+δ,ωΩ1.
    $

    Since $ R(t, \omega) > 0 $ for all $ \omega\in\Omega_{1} $ and $ t > 0 $, by the arbitrariness of $ \varepsilon_{1} $, we get $ \lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}R(t, \omega) = 0 $, $ \omega\in\Omega_{1} $. It follows from $ \mathbb{P}(\Omega_{1}) = 1 $ that

    $ limtR(t)=0a.s.
    $
    (3.7)

    At last, we prove the assertion $ \lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}S(t) = \frac{\Lambda}{\mu} $ a.s. It follows from model (1.3) that

    $ dX(t)=[ΛμX(t)αI(t)]dt,
    $

    which implies

    $ d(eμtX(t))=eμt[ΛαI(t)]dt.
    $
    (3.8)

    For any $ t > T $, integrating both sides of (3.8) from $ T $ to $ t $ and using (3.6), we obtain that for any $ \omega\in\Omega_{1} $

    $ X(t,ω)=eμ(tT)X(T,ω)+tTeμ(ts)[ΛαI(s)]dseμ(tT)X(T,ω)+tTeμ(ts)[Λαε1]ds=eμ(tT)X(T,ω)+Λαε1μ[1eμ(tT)].
    $

    Thus, for any $ \omega\in\Omega_{1} $, we have $ \liminf_{t\rightarrow\infty}X(t, \omega)\geq\frac{\Lambda-\alpha \varepsilon_{1}}{\mu} $, which, together with the arbitrariness of $ \varepsilon_{1} $, yields

    $ lim inftX(t,ω)Λμ,forallωΩ1.
    $

    From $ \mathbb{P}(\Omega_{1}) = 1 $, we get $ \liminf_{t\rightarrow\infty}X(t)\geq\frac{\Lambda}{\mu} $ a.s. On the other hand, from Remark 1, it follows that $ \limsup\limits_{t\rightarrow\infty}X(t)\leq\frac{\Lambda}{\mu} $. Thus, we have

    $ limtX(t)=limt[S(t)+I(t)+R(t)]=Λμa.s.,
    $

    which, together with (3.5) and (3.7), yields

    $ limtS(t)=Λμa.s.
    $

    The proof is therefore complete.

    Remark 2. Theorem 2 shows that the disease of system (1.3) dies out with probability one if $ \mathcal{R}_{s} < 1 $ and $ \sigma^{2} < \frac{\beta\mu}{\Lambda f'(0)} $. Moreover, we note $ \mathcal{R}_{s} $ in Theorem 2 is smaller than the basic reproduction number $ \mathcal{R}_{0} $ of system (1.1), and hence environmental noise may lead the disease to extinction. If $ \sigma = 0 $, then system (1.3) can be reduced to system (1.1). Further, Theorem 2 is consistent with the result in [6].

    Remark 3. If we let $ f(I) = \frac{I}{1+aI}, \; \gamma_{1} = 0, \; \gamma_{2} = \gamma, \; \delta = 0 $, system (1.3) can be transformed into system $ (1.3) $ in [21]. From Theorem 2, it follows that for any initial condition $ (S_{0}, I_{0}, R_{0})\in\mathbb{R}_{+}^{3} $, if one of conditions $ (C_1) $–$ (C_4) $ holds then the disease of system $ (1.3) $ will extinct with probability one. However, Theorem 3.1 in [21] shows that for any initial condition $ (S_{0}, I_{0}, R_{0})\in\Gamma $, if $ \sigma^{2} > \frac{\beta^{2}}{2(\mu+\gamma+\alpha)} $, then the disease of system $ (1.3) $ will tend to zero exponentially with probability one. Obviously, Theorem 2 generalizes and improves the corresponding result in [21].

    Remark 4. Let $ f(I) = \frac{I}{1+aI} $, system (1.3) can be changed into $ (1.2) $ in [22]. Theorem 2 shows that the disease of system dies out with probability one. Particularly, if $ \mathcal{R}_{s}\geq1 $ and $ \frac{\beta\mu}{\Lambda}\cdot\frac{\mathcal{R}_{0}}{2} < \sigma^{2} < \frac{\beta\mu}{\Lambda} $, Theorem 2 in this paper shows the extinction of the disease; however, Theorem 3.2 in [22] can not show the extinction of the disease. Furthermore, we obtain $ \lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}S(t) = \frac{\Lambda}{\mu} $ and $ \lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}R(t) = 0\; \; a.s. $ But, only the disease extinction is found in Theorem 3.2 in [22]. Therefore, Theorem 2 in this paper improves and generalizes Theorem 3.2 in [22].

    Remark 5. Let $ h(S) = S, \; \gamma_{1} = 0, \; \gamma_{2} = \gamma $. From Theorem 2, extinction of model (1.3) requires that $ f(I) $ is a real locally Lipschitz function on $ \mathbb{R}_{+} $. However, from Corollary 1 in [23], extinction of model (1.3) requires that $ f(I) $ is twice continuously differentiable on $ \mathbb{R}_{+} $. Obviously, the conditions of Theorem 2 are weaker than those of Corollary 1 in [23].

    When considering epidemic models, we are interested in when the disease will prevail in the population. In the deterministic models, the problem can be solved by proving that the endemic equilibrium of the corresponding model is globally asymptotically stable. But for model (1.3), there is no endemic equilibrium. In this section, we will establish sufficient conditions to ensure that the disease in model (1.3) is permanent in the time mean. Now, we give the definition of persistence in the mean as follows.

    Definition 1. Model (1.3) is said to be persistent in the mean if $ \liminf_{t\rightarrow\infty}\langle I(t)\rangle > 0 $ a.s.

    For the convenience, we give the following useful lemma.

    Lemma 1. (See [28]). Suppose $ x\in C(\Omega\times[0, +\infty), \mathbb{R}_{+}) $ and $ F\in C(\Omega\times[0, +\infty), (-\infty, +\infty)) $. If there are three positive constants $ \lambda $, $ \lambda_{0} $ and $ T $ such that

    $ lnx(t)λtλ0t0x(s)ds+F(t),a.s.,foralltT,
    $

    where $ \lim\limits_{t\rightarrow\infty}\frac{F(t)}{t} = 0 $ a.s., then $ \liminf_{t\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{t}\int_{0}^{t}x(s){\rm d}s\geq\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_{0}} $ a.s.

    Theorem 3. Suppose that $ ({H_{1}})-({H_{3}}) $ hold. Let $ (S(t), I(t), R(t)) $ be the solution of model (1.3) with any given initial condition $ (S_{0}, I_{0}, R_{0})\in\mathbb{R}_{+}^{3} $. If $ \mathcal{R}_{s} > 1 $, then

    $ (i)lim inftS(t)Λμμ2+Λβf(0)>0a.s.;(ii)lim inftI(t)μ2Φ(Λf(0)μ)βΛ(f(0))2(1Λσ2f(0)2μβ)(μϑ+β)>0a.s.;(iii)lim inftR(t)γ2μ2Φ(Λf(0)μ)(μ+δ)βΛ(f(0))2(1Λσ2f(0)2μβ)(μϑ+β)>0a.s.
    $

    Proof. From Remark 1, it follows that, for any $ 0 < \varepsilon < \frac{2\beta}{\sigma^{2}f'(0)}\Big(1-\frac{\Lambda\sigma^{2}f'(0)}{2\mu\beta}\Big) $, there exists a constant $ T = T(\varepsilon) > 0 $ such that $ X(t)\leq\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}+\varepsilon $ for all $ t\geq T $. Note that $ 0 < f(I)\leq f'(0)I $, then from the first equation of model (1.3), we can derive that

    $ S(t)S0T0[ΛμS(s)βS(s)f(I(s))]ds+tT[ΛμS(s)βf(0)(Λμ+ε)S(s)]dst0σS(s)f(I(s))dB(s)=T0[ΛμS(s)βS(s)f(I(s))]ds+tT[Λ(μ+βf(0)(Λμ+ε))S(s)]dst0σS(s)f(I(s))dB(s),
    $

    which implies

    $ (μ+βf(0)(Λμ+ε))1tt0S(s)dsΛΛTtS(t)S0tM2(t)t+1tT0[ΛμS(s)βS(s)f(I(s))]ds,
    $
    (4.1)

    where $ M_{2}(t) = \int_{0}^{t}\sigma S(s)f(I(s)){\rm d}B(s) $. Clearly, $ M_{2}(t) $ is a real-valued continuous local martingale vanishing at time $ 0 $ and

    $ M2,M2t=T0[σS(s)f(I(s))]2ds+tT[σS(s)f(I(s))]2dsT0[σS(s)f(I(s))]2ds+σ2(f(0))2(Λμ+ε)4(tT).
    $

    Note that $ \limsup_{t\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\langle M_{2}, M_{2}\rangle_{t}}{t}\leq\sigma^{2}(f'(0))^{2}\Big(\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}+\varepsilon\Big)^{4} < \infty $. Then, from the strong law of large numbers (see [27]), it follows that

    $ limtM2(t)t=limt1tt0σS(s)f(I(s))dB(s)=0a.s.
    $
    (4.2)

    This, together with (4.1), yields

    $ lim inft1tt0S(s)dsΛμ+βf(0)(Λμ+ε)a.s.,
    $

    From the arbitrariness of $ \varepsilon $, it follows that

    $ lim inft1tt0S(s)dsΛμμ2+Λβf(0)>0a.s.,
    $

    In the following, we will prove that (ⅱ) holds. Note that $ S(t)\leq\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}+\varepsilon $ for all $ t\geq T $ and $ 0 < f(I)\leq f'(0)I $, then, for any $ t\geq T $, $ 0 < \frac{Sf(I)}{I}\leq f'(0)S\leq f'(0)\Big(\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}+\varepsilon\Big) $, which implies $ 0 < \frac{Sf(I)}{f'(0)(\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}+\varepsilon)I}\leq1 $. Then, we have

    $ Φ(Sf(I)I)Φ(f(0)(Λμ+ε))βf(0)[1σ2f(0)2β(Λμ+ε)](Λμ+εSf(I)f(0)I).
    $

    That is,

    $ Φ(Sf(I)I)Φ(f(0)(Λμ+ε))βf(0)[1σ2f(0)2β(Λμ+ε)](Λμ+εSf(I)f(0)I).
    $

    Substituting this into (3.1) yields

    $ lnI(t)T0Φ(Sf(I)I)ds+Φ(f(0)(Λμ+ε))(tT)+M1(t)+lnI0βf(0)[1σ2f(0)2β(Λμ+ε)]tT(Λμ+εSf(I)f(0)I)ds.
    $
    (4.3)

    In addition, from the first equation of model (1.3), it follows that

    $ S(t)S(T)=tT[ΛμS(s)βS(s)f(I(s))+γ1I(s)+δR(s)]dstTσS(s)f(I(s))dB(s)tT[ΛμS(s)βS(s)f(I(s))]dstTσS(s)f(I(s))dB(s)=tT[μ(Λμ+εS(s)f(I(s))f(0)I(s))μS(s)(1f(I(s))f(0)I(s))μεβS(s)f(I(s))]dsM2(t).
    $
    (4.4)

    By the Assumption $ ({H_{3}}) $, we know that there exists a constant $ \vartheta > 0 $, such that $ 1-\frac{f(I)}{I}\leq f'(0)\vartheta I $. Note that $ f(I)\leq f'(0)I $ and $ S(t)\leq\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}+\varepsilon $ for any $ t > T $, we have

    $ S(t)S(T)tT[μ(Λμ+εS(s)f(I(s))f(0)I(s))f(0)S(s)(μϑ+β)I(s)με]dsM2(t)tT[μ(Λμ+εS(s)f(I(s))f(0)I(s))f(0)(Λμ+ε)(μϑ+β)I(s)με]dsM2(t),
    $

    which implies

    $ μtT(Λμ+εS(s)f(I(s))f(0)I(s))dsf(0)(Λμ+ε)(μϑ+β)tTI(s)ds+με(tT)+S(t)S(T)+M2(t).
    $
    (4.5)

    Substituting (4.5) into (4.3), we obtain

    $ lnI(t)Φ(f(0)(Λμ+ε))tβf(0)[1σ2f(0)2β(Λμ+ε)]εtβ(f(0))2μ[1σ2f(0)2β(Λμ+ε)](Λμ+ε)(μϑ+β)t0I(s)ds+F1(t),
    $

    where

    $ F1(t)=T0Φ(Sf(I)I)dsΦ(f(0)(Λμ+ε))T+M1(t)+lnI0βf(0)μ[1σ2f(0)2β(Λμ+ε)][μεT+M2(t)+S(t)S(T)].
    $

    From (3.3) and (4.2), it follows that $ \lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\frac{F_{1}(t)}{t} = 0 $ a.s. Note that $ \mathcal{R}_{s} > 1 $. For any $ \varepsilon > 0 $ sufficiently small, we have

    $ Φ(f(0)(Λμ+ε))=(μ+γ1+γ2+α)(Rs1)+(βΛσ2f(0)μ)f(0)εσ2(f(0))22ε2>0,
    $

    and $ 1-\frac{\sigma^{2}f'(0)}{2\beta}\Big(\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}+\varepsilon\Big) > 0 $. Using Lemma 1, it follows from the arbitrariness of $ \varepsilon $ that

    $ lim inftI(t)μ2Φ(Λf(0)μ)βΛ(f(0))2(1Λσ2f(0)2μβ)(μϑ+β)>0a.s.
    $
    (4.6)

    The assertion (ⅱ) is proved.

    Now, we will give the proof of (ⅲ). It follows from the third equation of model (1.3) that

    $ R(t)R0t=γ2I(t)(μ+δ)R(t),
    $
    (4.7)

    which, together with (4.6), yields

    $ lim inftR(t)γ2μ2Φ(Λf(0)μ)(μ+δ)βΛ(f(0))2(1Λσ2f(0)2μβ)(μϑ+β)>0a.s.
    $

    The proof is therefore complete.

    Remark 6. From Theorem 3, one can see that if $ \mathcal{R}_{s} > 1 $, the disease persists and prevails. Clearly, if we let $ \sigma = 0 $, then Theorem 3 is coincident with the result in [6].

    Remark 7. Theorems 2 and 3 imply that $ \mathcal{R}_{s} $ is the threshold of system (1.3) if $ \sigma^{2} < \frac{\beta\mu}{\Lambda f'(0)} $. Namely, the disease dies out with probability one if $ \mathcal{R}_{s} < 1 $, whereas if $ \mathcal{R}_{s} > 1 $, the infection may become almost surely persistent in the time mean.

    Remark 8. By constructing $ V(I) = \ln I $ and using Lemma 1, we obtain that, for any $ (S_{0}, I_{0}, R_{0})\in\mathbb{R}_{+}^{3} $, if $ \mathcal{R}_{s} > 1 $, then $ \liminf_{t\rightarrow\infty}\langle S(t)\rangle > 0 $, $ \liminf_{t\rightarrow\infty}\langle I(t)\rangle > 0 $, $ \liminf_{t\rightarrow\infty}\langle R(t)\rangle > 0\; \; a.s. $ However, Theorem 3.5 in [22] only obtained that, for any $ (S_{0}, I_{0}, R_{0})\in\Gamma $, $ \liminf_{t\rightarrow\infty}\langle I(t)\rangle > 0 $ by constructing $ V(I) = \ln I+a I $, which can be seen in the proof.

    Remark 9. Let $ h(S) = S $, $ \gamma_{1} = 0 $ and $ \gamma_{2} = \gamma $, then system (1.3) is consistent with system (1.4). The methods in proofs of Theorem 3 in our paper and [23] are different. Further, the results in [23] and our paper are different. From Theorem 3 in our paper, we have

    $ lim inftI(t)(μ+γ+α)(Rs1)βΛμ2(f(0))2(1Λσ2f(0)2μβ)(μϑ+β)=:A1>0a.s.
    $

    From Theorem 3 in [23], we have $ \liminf_{t\rightarrow\infty}\langle I(t)\rangle\geq\frac{(\mu+\gamma+\alpha)(\mathcal{R}_{s}-1)}{D^{*}} = : A_2 > 0 \; \; a.s., $ where $ D^{*} = f'(0)\left[\beta\Big(\frac{\mu+\alpha}{\mu}+\frac{\gamma}{\mu+\delta}\Big)+(\mu+\gamma+\alpha) \max_{0\leq\zeta\leq\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}}\frac{f(\zeta)-\zeta f'(\zeta)}{f^{2}(\zeta)}\right] $.

    For general function $ f $, it is difficult to compare $ A_1 $ with $ A_2 $. However, when $ f $ is a specific function, we can compare $ A_1 $ with $ A_2 $. For example, let $ f(I) = (1-\frac{\widetilde{\beta}I}{m+I})I $, where $ m > 0 $ and $ 0 < \widetilde{\beta} < 1 $. If $ 0 < m < \frac{\mu\widetilde{\beta}(\mu+\delta)(\mu+\gamma+\alpha)} {\beta\delta\gamma}\Big(\frac{1}{(1-\widetilde{\beta})^{2}}-1\Big) $, then $ A_3: = \frac{2\mu\beta}{\Lambda}\Big[1-\frac{D^{*}\mu^{2}m}{\beta\Lambda(\mu\widetilde{\beta}+\beta)}\Big] < \frac{2\mu\beta}{\Lambda}\Big[1-\frac{\mu(\mu+\gamma+\alpha)}{\beta\Lambda}\Big] = :A_4. $ It is easy to show that $ A_3 < \sigma^2 < A_4 $ yields $ A_1 = \frac{(\mu+\gamma+\alpha)(\mathcal{R}_{s}-1)} {\frac{\beta\Lambda}{\mu^{2}}\Big(1-\frac{\Lambda\sigma^{2}}{2\mu\beta}\Big) (\frac{\mu\widetilde{\beta}}{m}+\beta)} > \frac{(\mu+\gamma+\alpha)(\mathcal{R}_{s}-1)}{D^{*}} = A_2. $ In addition, condition $ A_3 < \sigma^2 < A_4 $ ensures that the conditions of Theorem 3 in our paper and [23] hold. In this case, our results are better than those in [23].

    In the following, we will summarize a useful criterion for the extinction and persistence of the disease of model (1.3). First, we discuss the relationship between $ \mathcal{R}_{0} $ and $ \mathcal{R}_{s} $ for different values of white noise intensity $ \sigma^{2} $ in the following three cases.

    Case of $ \mathcal{R}_{0}\leq1 $. From $ \mathcal{R}_{s} = \mathcal{R}_{0} -\frac{\Lambda^{2}\sigma^{2}(f'(0))^{2}}{2\mu^{2}(\mu+\gamma_{1}+\gamma_{2}+\alpha)} $, it follows that $ \mathcal{R}_{s} < 1 $ for any $ \sigma > 0 $. Clearly, $ \frac{\beta\mu}{\Lambda f'(0)} > \frac{\beta\mu}{\Lambda f'(0)}\cdot\frac{\mathcal{R}_{0}}{2} $. Now, we differ three cases

    $ {ifσ2βμΛf(0)>βμΛf(0)R02,then(C3)holds;ifβμΛf(0)>σ2>βμΛf(0)R02,then(C2)holds;ifβμΛf(0)>βμΛf(0)R02σ2,then(C1)holds.
    $

    Hence, if $ \mathcal{R}_{0}\leq1 $, then for any $ \sigma > 0 $, the disease dies out with probability one.

    Case of $ 1 < \mathcal{R}_{0}\leq2 $. It follows that

    $ 2μ2(μ+γ1+γ2+α)Λ2(f(0))2(R01)βμΛf(0)R02βμΛf(0).
    $

    On the other hand, $ \mathcal{R}_{s} < 1 $ is equivalent to $ \sigma^{2} > \frac{2\mu^{2}(\mu+\gamma_{1}+\gamma_{2}+\alpha)}{\Lambda^{2}(f'(0))^{2}}(\mathcal{R}_{0}-1) $. Now, we differ four cases

    $ {ifσ2<2μ2(μ+γ1+γ2+α)Λ2(f(0))2(R01),thenconditioninTheorem4.1holds;if2μ2(μ+γ1+γ2+α)Λ2(f(0))2(R01)<σ2<βμΛf(0)R02βμΛf(0),then(C1)holds;if2μ2(μ+γ1+γ2+α)Λ2(f(0))2(R01)βμΛf(0)R02<σ2<βμΛf(0),then(C2)holds;if2μ2(μ+γ1+γ2+α)Λ2(f(0))2(R01)βμΛf(0)R02βμΛf(0)<σ2,then(C3)holds.
    $

    Thus, for $ 1 < \mathcal{R}_{0}\leq2 $, if $ \sigma^{2} > \frac{2\mu^{2}(\mu+\gamma_{1}+\gamma_{2}+\alpha)}{\Lambda^{2}(f'(0))^{2}}(\mathcal{R}_{0}-1) $ (i.e. $ \mathcal{R}_{s} < 1 $), then the disease dies out with probability one, whereas if $ \sigma^{2} < \frac{2\mu^{2}(\mu+\gamma_{1}+\gamma_{2}+\alpha)}{\Lambda^{2}(f'(0))^{2}}(\mathcal{R}_{0}-1) $ (i.e. $ \mathcal{R}_{s} > 1 $), then the infection may become almost surely persistent in the time mean. Therefore, if $ 1 < \mathcal{R}_{0}\leq2 $, then $ \mathcal{R}_{s} $ is the threshold parameter.

    Case of $ \mathcal{R}_{0} > 2 $. On the one hand, it follows that

    $ βμΛf(0)<2μ2(μ+γ1+γ2+α)Λ2(f(0))2(R01)<βμΛf(0)R02.
    $

    On the other hand, $ \mathcal{R}_{s} < 1 $ is equivalent to $ \sigma^{2} > \frac{2\mu^{2}(\mu+\gamma_{1}+\gamma_{2}+\alpha)}{\Lambda^{2}(f'(0))^{2}}(\mathcal{R}_{0}-1) $. Now, we differ four cases

    $ {ifσ2βμΛf(0)<2μ2(μ+γ1+γ2+α)Λ2(f(0))2(R01)<βμΛf(0)R02,thenRs>1;ifβμΛf(0)<σ2<2μ2(μ+γ1+γ2+α)Λ2(f(0))2(R01)<βμΛf(0)R02,thenRs>1;ifβμΛf(0)<2μ2(μ+γ1+γ2+α)Λ2(f(0))2(R01)σ2βμΛf(0)R02,thenconditionsinTheorems2and3arenotsatisfied;ifβμΛf(0)<2μ2(μ+γ1+γ2+α)Λ2(f(0))2(R01)<βμΛf(0)R02<σ2,then(C3)holds.
    $

    Thus, if $ \sigma^{2} < \frac{2\mu^{2}(\mu+\gamma_{1}+\gamma_{2}+\alpha)}{\Lambda^{2}(f'(0))^{2}}(\mathcal{R}_{0}-1) $ (i.e. $ \mathcal{R}_{s} > 1 $), then the infection may become almost surely persistent in the mean, whereas if $ \sigma^{2} > \frac{\beta\mu}{\Lambda f'(0)}\cdot\frac{\mathcal{R}_{0}}{2} $ (i.e. $ {\rm (C_3)} $ in Theorem 2 holds), then the disease dies out.

    We summarize the above analysis as follows.

    Corollary 1. Let Assumptions $ ({H_{1}})-({H_{3}}) $ hold and let $ (S(t), I(t), R(t)) $ be the solution of model (1.3) with any given initial condition $ (S_{0}, I_{0}, R_{0})\in\mathbb{R}_{+}^{3} $. The solution $ (S(t), I(t), R(t)) $ has the property:

    (ⅰ) if $ \mathcal{R}_{0}\leq1 $, then the disease dies out with probability one for any $ \sigma > 0 $;

    (ⅱ) if $ 1 < \mathcal{R}_{0}\leq2 $, then $ \mathcal{R}_{s} $ is the threshold parameter, i.e., the disease dies out with probability one if $ \mathcal{R}_{s} < 1 $, whereas if $ \mathcal{R}_{s} > 1 $, the infection may become almost surely persistent in the time mean;

    (ⅲ) if $ \mathcal{R}_{0} > 2 $, then the disease dies out with probability one if $ \sigma^{2} > \frac{\beta\mu}{\Lambda f'(0)}\cdot\frac{\mathcal{R}_{0}}{2} $, while if $ \sigma^{2} < \frac{2\mu^{2}(\mu+\gamma_{1}+\gamma_{2}+\alpha)}{\Lambda^{2}(f'(0))^{2}}(\mathcal{R}_{0}-1) $, the infection may become almost surely persistent in the time mean.

    In this section, we analyze the stochastic behaviors of model (1.3) by means of the numerical simulations in order to make readers understand our results more better. Throughout the following numerical simulations, we choose $ f(I) = I $, $ f(I) = \frac{I}{1+aI^{2}} $ and $ f(I) = Ie^{-mI} $, respectively. Thus, $ f(I)\leq I $. The numerical simulations of epidemic dynamics are carried out for the academic tests with the arbitrary values of the parameters, which do not correspond to some epidemic and exhibit only the theoretical properties of numerical solutions of considered models.

    Example 1. Let $ f(I) = I $. Numerical experiments were made by using the following parameters:

    $ Λ=0.8,μ=0.4,γ1=0.4,γ2=0.1,α=0.3,δ=0.5,(S0,I0,R0)=(1,1,0).
    $

    ${\rm(i)}$ In order to demonstrate the conclusion ${\rm(i)}$ in Corollary 1, we take $ \beta = 0.3 $ and $ \sigma^{2} = 0.2 $. By a simple computation, $ \mathcal{R}_{0} = 0.5 < 1 $. From the numerical simulations given in Figure 1, the disease $ I(t) $ in deterministic model (1.1) and stochastic model (1.3) will die out with probability one (Figure 1).

    Figure 1.  (a) The trajectories of deterministic SIRS model (1.1). (b) The trajectories of stochastic SIRS model (1.3) with $ \sigma^{2} = 0.2 $.

    (ⅱ) In order to demonstrate the conclusion ${\rm(ii)}$ in Corollary 1, we take $ \beta = 0.8 $. By a simple computation, we obtain $ 1 < \mathcal{R}_{0}\approx1.33 < 2 $. From the numerical simulations given in Figure 2(a), it is shown that disease $ I(t) $ of deterministic model (1.1) is permanent in the population.

    Figure 2.  (a) The trajectories of deterministic SIRS model (1.1). (b) The trajectories of stochastic SIRS model (1.3) with $ \sigma^{2} = 0.4 $.

    $ 1^{\circ} $ Assume that $ \sigma^{2} = 0.4 $. By a simple computation, we obtain $ \mathcal{R}_{s}\approx0.66 < 1 $. It can be seen from Figure 2(b) that disease $ I(t) $ in model (1.3) will die out with probability one.

    $ 2^{\circ} $ Assume that $ \sigma^{2} = 0.02 $. By computing, $ \mathcal{R}_{s}\approx1.297 > 1 $. From the numerical simulations given in Figure 3, it is shown that disease $ I(t) $ of model (1.3) is permanent in the mean with probability one.

    Figure 3.  The trajectories of stochastic SIRS model (1.3) with $ \sigma^{2} = 0.02 $. (a) the trajectories of susceptible individuals, (b) the trajectories of infectious individuals, (c) the trajectories of recovered individuals.

    (ⅲ) In order to demonstrate the conclusion (ⅲ) in Corollary 1, we take $ \beta = 1.5 $. By a simple computation, $ \mathcal{R}_{0} = 2.5 > 2 $. From Figure 4(a), it follows that $ I(t) $ of (1.1) is permanent in the population.

    Figure 4.  The trajectories of stochastic SIRS model (1.3). (a) $ \sigma^{2} = 0 $, (b) $ \sigma^{2} = 0.03 $, (c) $ \sigma^{2} = 0.3 $, (d) $ \sigma^{2} = 1 $.

    $ 1^{\circ} $ Assume that $ \sigma^{2} = 0.03 $ ($ \sigma^{2} = 0.3 $). By a simple computation, $ \sigma^{2} < \frac{2\mu^{2}(\mu+\gamma_{1}+\gamma_{2}+\alpha)}{\Lambda^{2}}(\mathcal{R}_{0}-1) = 0.9 $. It can be seen from Figure 4(b) (4(c)) that disease $ I(t) $ in model (1.3) is permanent in the time mean.

    $ 2^{\circ} $ Assume that $ \sigma^{2} = 1 $. By computing, $ \sigma^{2} > \frac{\beta\mu}{\Lambda}\cdot\frac{\mathcal{R}_{0}}{2} = 0.9375 $. From the numerical simulations given in Figure 4(d), it is shown that disease $ I(t) $ of model (1.3) will die out with probability one.

    Example 2. Let $ f(I) = \frac{I}{1+aI^{2}} $ and $ a = 1 $. Other parameters are defined as Example 1.

    (ⅰ) From the numerical simulations given in Figure 5, the disease $ I(t) $ in deterministic model (1.1) and stochastic model (1.3) will die out with probability one.

    Figure 5.  (a) The trajectories of deterministic SIRS model (1.1). (b) The trajectories of stochastic SIRS model (1.3) with $ \sigma^{2} = 0.2 $.

    (ⅱ) From Figure 6(a), we obtain that disease $ I(t) $ of (1.1) is permanent in the population.

    Figure 6.  (a) The trajectories of deterministic SIRS model (1.1). (b) The trajectories of stochastic SIRS model (1.3) with $ \sigma^{2} = 0.4 $.

    $ 1^{\circ} $ If $ \sigma^{2} = 0.4 $. From Figure 6(b), disease $ I(t) $ in model (1.3) will be extinct with probability one.

    $ 2^{\circ} $ If $ \sigma^{2} = 0.02 $. From Figure 7, disease $ I(t) $ of model (1.3) is permanent in the mean.

    Figure 7.  The trajectories of SIRS model (1.3) with $ \sigma^{2} = 0.02 $. (a) the trajectories of susceptible individuals, (b) the trajectories of infectious individuals, (c) the trajectories of recovered individuals.

    (ⅲ) From the numerical simulations given in Figure 8(a), it is shown that disease $ I(t) $ of deterministic model (1.1) is permanent in the population.

    Figure 8.  The trajectories of stochastic SIRS model (1.3). (a) $ \sigma^{2} = 0 $, (b) $ \sigma^{2} = 0.03 $, (c) $ \sigma^{2} = 0.3 $, (d) $ \sigma^{2} = 1 $.

    $ 1^{\circ} $ If $ \sigma^{2} = 0.03 $ ($ \sigma^{2} = 0.3 $). From Figure 8(b) (8(c)), disease $ I(t) $ in (1.3) is permanent in mean.

    $ 2^{\circ} $ If $ \sigma^{2} = 1 $. From Figure 8(d), we obtain that disease $ I(t) $ of model (1.3) will be extinct.

    Example 3. Let $ f(I) = Ie^{-mI} $ and $ m = 1 $. Other parameters are defined as Example 1.

    (ⅰ) From Figure 9, the disease $ I(t) $ in model (1.1) and model (1.3) will die out with probability one.

    Figure 9.  (a) The trajectories of deterministic SIRS model (1.1). (b) The trajectories of stochastic SIRS model (1.3) with $ \sigma^{2} = 0.2 $.

    (ⅱ) From Figure 10(a), we obtain that disease $ I(t) $ of (1.1) is permanent in the population.

    Figure 10.  (a) The trajectories of deterministic SIRS model (1.1). (b) The trajectories of stochastic SIRS model (1.3) with $ \sigma^{2} = 0.4 $.

    $ 1^{\circ} $ If $ \sigma^{2} = 0.4 $. From Figure 10(b), disease $ I(t) $ in model (1.3) will be extinct with probability one.

    $ 2^{\circ} $ If $ \sigma^{2} = 0.02 $. From Figure 11, disease $ I(t) $ of model (1.3) is permanent in the mean.

    Figure 11.  The trajectories of stochastic SIRS model (1.3) with $ \sigma^{2} = 0.02 $. (a) the trajectories of susceptible individuals, (b) the trajectories of infectious individuals, (c) the trajectories of recovered individuals.

    (ⅲ) From the numerical simulations given in Figure 12(a), it is shown that disease $ I(t) $ of deterministic model (1.1) is permanent in the population.

    Figure 12.  The trajectories of stochastic SIRS model (1.3). (a) $ \sigma^{2} = 0 $, (b) $ \sigma^{2} = 0.03 $, (c) $ \sigma^{2} = 0.3 $, (d) $ \sigma^{2} = 1 $.

    $ 1^{\circ} $ If $ \sigma^{2} = 0.03 $ ($ \sigma^{2} = 0.3 $) $. From Figure 12(b) (12(c)), we get that disease $ I(t) $ in model (1.3) is permanent in the mean.

    $ 2^{\circ} $ If $ \sigma^{2} = 1 $. From Figure 12(d), we obtain that disease $ I(t) $ of model (1.3) will be extinct with probability one.

    From Examples 1, 2 and 3, we can see that different incidence rates of diseases have different effects on the extinction and persistence in the mean of diseases. In addition, the intensity of noise plays an important role in epidemic dynamics. Comparing Figures 3 and 11 (or Figures 7 and 11), we can conclude that massive media coverages are needed to prevent the disease to spread widely in the population. This is consistent with the results in [26].

    Comparing Figures 5(a) and 5(b), we conclude that if $ \mathcal{R}_{0} < 1 $, then $ I(t) $ becomes extinct regardless of the intensity of noise. From Figures 6(a), 6(b) and 7, if $ 1 < \mathcal{R}_{0} < 2 $, then great intensity of the noise can make diseases extinction. From Figure 8(d), if $ \mathcal{R}_{0} > 2 $, the disease becomes extinct as the intensity of the noise is large.

    This paper is concerned with the persistence and extinction of a stochastic SIRS epidemic model with nonlinear incidence rate and transfer from infectious to susceptible. To begin with, we consider the global existence and uniqueness of the positive solution to model (1.3) with any positive initial value. Next, sufficient criteria for the persistence and extinction of the disease are established. Then, we discuss the relationship between $ \mathcal{R}_{0} $ and $ \mathcal{R}_{s} $ for different values of white noise intensity $ \sigma^{2} $. In addition, we find that in case of neglecting the impact of environmental noises, the deterministic threshold $ \mathcal{R}_{0} $ may exist and the threshold parameter will be overestimated. Furthermore, we discover that a large noise has the effect of suppressing the epidemic. So these results show that noises have important effects on the persistence and extinction of the disease. In addition, we can see that different incidence rates of diseases have different effects on epidemic dynamics.

    Although there are important discoveries revealed by these studies, there are also limitations for the model. Theorem 2 shows that the particular expression for the nonlinear transmission makes no influence on the extinction of the disease. We leave these as our future work.

    This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 11471197, 11571210, 11501339).

    The authors declare there is no conflict of interest.

    [1] Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 267 (2000), 1347-1354.
    [2] J. Math. Biol., 50 (2005), 607-625.
    [3] J. Virol., 71 (1997), 3275-3278.
    [4] Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, 42 (2009), 1-11.
    [5] Bull. Math. Biol., 64 (2002), 29-64.
    [6] Math. Biosci., 200 (2006), 1-27.
    [7] Funkcialaj Ekvacioj, 29 (1986), 77-90.
    [8] Math. Biosci., 165 (2000), 27-39.
    [9] N. Engl. J. Med., 324 (1991), 961-964.
    [10] J. Theor. Biol., 175 (1995), 567-576.
    [11] J. Theor. Biol., 190 (1998), 201-214.
    [12] J. Theor. Biol., 226 (2004), 95-109.
    [13] Funkcialaj Ekvacioj, 34 (1991), 187-209.
    [14] Springer-Verlag, New York, 1993.
    [15] Cambrige University Press, Cambrige, 1981.
    [16] J. Theor. Biol., 243 (2006), 191-204.
    [17] Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 93 (1996), 7247-7251.
    [18] in Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics, SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 1976.
    [19] Nonlinear Analysis: Real World Applications, 13 (2012), 1080-1092.
    [20] SIAM J. Appl. Math., 70 (2010), 2434-2448.
    [21] Math. Biosci. Eng., 7 (2010), 675-685.
    [22] Math. Biosci., 163 (2000), 201-215.
    [23] Math. Biosci., 179 (2002), 73-94.
    [24] Science, 272 (1996), 74-79.
    [25] Oxford University, Oxford, 2000.
    [26] Math. Biosci., 235 (2012), 98-109.
    [27] Nat. Rev. Immunol., 2 (2002), 28-36.
    [28] Nature, 387 (1997), 188-191.
    [29] Math. Biosci., 114 (1993), 81-125.
    [30] SIAM Rev., 41 (1999), 3-44.
    [31] Science, 271 (1996), 1582-1586.
    [32] Science, 271 (1996), 497-499.
    [33] Lancet, 354 (1999), 1782-1785.
    [34] Bull. Math. Biol., 69 (2007), 2027-2060.
    [35] American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1995.
    [36] Nonlinear Anal., 47 (2001), 6169-6179.
    [37] J. Theor. Biol., 203 (2000), 285-301.
    [38] Mathematical Medicine and Biology, 29 (2012), 283-300.
    [39] Math. Biosci., 200 (2006), 44-57.
    [40] Comput. Math. Appl., 51 (2006), 1593-1610.
    [41] Math, Biosci., 219 (2009), 104-112.
    [42] Trends. Immunol., 23 (2002), 194-200.
    [43] Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 355 (2000), 329-343.
    [44] Lancet, 346 (1995), 61-62.
    [45] Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. B, 12 (2009), 511-524.
    [46] Math. Med. Biol., 25 (2008), 99-112.
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Yanmei Wang, Guirong Liu, Stability of a Nonlinear Stochastic Epidemic Model with Transfer from Infectious to Susceptible, 2020, 2020, 1076-2787, 1, 10.1155/2020/9614670
    2. Hongxia Liu, Juan Li, Mengnan Chi, Jinlei Liu, Wencai Zhao, Songbai Guo, Ergodicity of a Nonlinear Stochastic SIRS Epidemic Model with Regime-Switching Diffusions, 2020, 2020, 1099-0526, 1, 10.1155/2020/4574510
    3. Bo Wu, Jianwen Jia, Asymptotic Behavior of a Stochastic Delayed Model for Chronic Hepatitis B Infection, 2020, 2020, 1076-2787, 1, 10.1155/2020/1875475
    4. Guihua Li, Yuanhang Liu, Carmen Coll, The Dynamics of a Stochastic SIR Epidemic Model with Nonlinear Incidence and Vertical Transmission, 2021, 2021, 1607-887X, 1, 10.1155/2021/4645203
    5. S. El Attouga, D. Bouggar, M. El Fatini, A. Hilbert, R. Pettersson, Lévy noise with infinite activity and the impact on the dynamic of an SIRS epidemic model, 2023, 03784371, 128701, 10.1016/j.physa.2023.128701
    6. Xuezhong Bao, Xiaoling Han, Dynamics analysis of a delayed stochastic SIRS epidemic model with a nonlinear incidence rate, 2024, 1532-6349, 1, 10.1080/15326349.2024.2401410
    7. Nabeela Anwar, Iftikhar Ahmad, Adiqa Kausar Kiani, Muhammad Shoaib, Muhammad Asif Zahoor Raja, Novel intelligent predictive networks for analysis of chaos in stochastic differential SIS epidemic model with vaccination impact, 2024, 219, 03784754, 251, 10.1016/j.matcom.2023.12.024
    8. Srestha Sadhu, Amrita Namtirtha, Mariana Curado Malta, Animesh Dutta, 2023, STC+K: A Semi-Global Triangular and Degree Centrality Method to Identify Influential Spreaders in Complex Networks, 979-8-3503-0918-8, 655, 10.1109/WI-IAT59888.2023.00107
    9. Xuezhong Bao, Xiaoling Han, Dynamic behavior and numerical simulation of stochastic epidemic models with time delay, 2024, 0, 1937-1632, 0, 10.3934/dcdss.2024209
    10. Zhengwen Yin, Yuanshun Tan, Threshold dynamics of stochastic SIRSW infectious disease model with multiparameter perturbation, 2024, 9, 2473-6988, 33467, 10.3934/math.20241597
    11. Ramazanov Israpil, Approaches to Creating Adaptive Design in Mobile Applications Using React Native, 2025, 02, 3064996X, 20, 10.70315/uloap.ulete.2025.0201004
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2015 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(3010) PDF downloads(635) Cited by(23)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog