 Research
 Open access
 Published:
Optimal control of an HIV infection model with logistic growth, celluar and homural immune response, cure rate and celltocell spread
Boundary Value Problems volumeÂ 2022, ArticleÂ number:Â 5 (2022)
Abstract
In this paper, we propose an optimal control problem for an HIV infection model with cellular and humoral immune responses, logistic growth of uninfected cells, celltocell spread, saturated infection, and cure rate. The model describes the interaction between uninfected cells, infected cells, free viruses, and cellular and humoral immune responses. We use two control functions in our model to show the effectiveness of drug therapy on inhibiting virus production and preventing new infections. We apply Pontryagin maximum principle to study these two control functions. Next, we simulate the role of optimal therapy in the control of the infection by numerical simulations and AMPL software.
1 Introduction
Acquired immune deficiency syndrome (in short, AIDS) is caused by a type of lentivirus called human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The life cycle of HIV is not yet completely understood. Studies show that the spread of the virus leads to the decreasing of immune cells and the creating of opportunistic infections. When the number of immune cells reaches less than 200, AIDS happens. The normal time from the entry of the virus to a cell to the occurring of AIDS is between 7 and 10 years, varying from one person to another person [1â€“4]. Many countries have been affected by the HIV1 virus for many years. The virus is spreading rapidly in some areas. Many researchers [5â€“17] have been developed mathematical models to understand the dynamics of HIV. Due to the rapid spread of HIV1 in some areas, many countries have been found some ways for fighting HIV1 [18, 19]. One way is to use drugs that help the immune system to prevent the spread of HIV infection. These drugs are called antiretroviral drugs. Antiretroviral therapy, used to treat HIV in most countries, can restore the immune system and prevent opportunistic infections. These treatments reduce the production of new infections and the rate of HIV transmission. These methods increase the life expectancy of HIVinfected patients. One of these drugs is the reverse transcriptase inhibitor (RTI), which prevents the conversion of viral RNA to DNA and produces infected mature cells. Protease inhibitor (PI) prevents virus production from infected cells [20, 21]. Since these treatments are singly detrimental to the patient, an optimal therapy for the treatment of HIV infection using a combination of multiple appropriate treatment strategies is needed. Due to the lack of understanding of the mechanisms among host cells, HIV infection, and the happening of AIDS, many questions have been raised: What is the best combination? When is the appropriate time to start the treatment? How this treatment should be done? Some HIV mathematical models [22â€“29] play a significant role in understanding the dynamics of viral transmission, drug therapy, and HIV1 improvement. Optimal control theory [30] is a branch of mathematical science that helps us to find optimal ways to control infectious diseases. One of the optimal ways is to use the best drug dosage to treat and control the infection.
In this paper, we propose a new mathematical model of HIV, which is an extension of the model developed in [16, 17]. In the presented model, we use the logistic function to describe the rate of mitotic proliferation of healthy cells, the saturation function for virustocell transmission, celltocell transmission, and cellular and humoral immune. We also consider the cure rate (namely, the conversion rate of infected cells to healthy cells) by gene therapy or loss of all cccDNA from their nucleus [31].
This paper is organized as follows: In Sect.Â 2, we formulate our new model with five state variables and two control functions. In Sect.Â 3, by introducing two drug controllers, we state the necessary conditions for the existence of optimal control. In Sect.Â 4, we illustrate the numerical simulation of the model. In Sect.Â 5, we conclude.
2 Model formulation
The population of \(CD ^{+} _{4} \) Tcells is stimulated and divided by the antigen, and this proliferation stops when it reaches its maximum value. Hence, we can use the logistic function to describe this process [32, 33]. To construct a more realistic model, we use the saturation function instead of the bilinear infection rate [16, 34]. Besides the virustocell transmission, we will use the rate of celltocell transmission [9]. Both cellular and humoral immune systems are included in our model for investigating the effectiveness of the Foutz vaccine design [14]. The principle of the Kaminsky gene therapy states that the cure rate can be used to avert the infected cells to uninfected cells [31]. Due to the effect of antiviral drugs on HIV control and personal health, we consider two control functions to study their effect [15]. In view of the above assumptions, we provide a new model with five state variables. The state variables of this model are denoted by x, y, v, z, w, which are respectively: Population of uninfected \(CD^{+}_{4} \) Tcells, Population of infected \(CD^{+}_{4} \) Tcells, Population of infectious HIV virions, Population of Tcells, Population of Bcells. Moreover, two control functions denoted by \(u_{1}(t)\) and \(u_{2}(t) \), are introduced as reverse transcriptase inhibitor (RTI) and protease inhibitor (PI), respectively. RTI prevents the transcription process in HIVinfected cells and PI blocks the protease enzyme and prevents the production of infection and adult viruses. Our proposed model is given below.
All parameters presented in model (2.1) are positive and independent of time. They are defined in TableÂ 1. The \(u_{1}\) controller shows the impact of reverse transcriptase inhibitors, and the \(u_{2}\) controller indicates the effect of protease inhibitor. These two controllers are timedependent and limited to 0 and 1. The case \(u_{1}=u_{2}=0\) denotes 0% efficacy of the reverse transcriptase and protease inhibitors, while the case \(u_{1}=u_{2}=1\) indicates 100% efficacy of the reverse transcriptase and protease inhibitors. To begin, we assume that \(\Phi (t)=(x(t), y(t), v(t), z(t), w(t))\) is an integral curve of the system (2.1) parameterized by the time variable t. Now, we define an objective function as follows:
In the above definition, the parameter \(t_{f}\) denotes the terminal time of the treatment, and the parameters \(E_{1} \) and \(E_{2}\) represent nonnegative weight factors of the treatment for inhibiting the reverse transcriptase and protease enzymes. The quadratic expressions of \(u_{1} \) and \(u_{2} \) represent nonlinear costs of the treatment, as pointed in [35]. We assume that \(u_{1} \) and \(u_{2} \) are piecewise continuous and Lebesgueintegrable.
Remark 2.1
Given a continuous function \(g(t)\) on the time interval \([a,b]\). Its average on this interval is given by
Therefore, the integral defined in (2.2) denotes the average of the function \(g(t)=t_{f}(g_{1}(t)g_{2}(t))\) on the interval \([0,t_{f}]\), where \(g_{1}(t)=x(t)+z(t)+w(t)\) and \(g_{2}(t)=v(t)+\frac{E_{1}}{2}u^{2}_{1}(t)+\frac{E_{2}}{2}u^{2}_{2}(t)\). We note that \(g_{1}(t)\) is the summation of the uninfected, cellular, and humoral immune cells, while \(g_{2}(t)\) is the summation of the population of viruses and the dosage of the drugs at time t. Hence, the best strategy for treating HIV infection is to maximize the objective function (2.2).
We aim to find the optimal controls \(u_{1}^{*} \) and \(u_{2}^{*}\) such that
where U is a measurable control set described by
3 The necessary conditions for the existence of optimal control
In this section, by using the Pontryagin maximum principle [30], we obtain the necessary conditions for the existence of optimal control for system (2.1). The Pontryagin maximum principle states: if \(u^{*}(t)=(u_{1}^{*},u_{2}^{*})\in U\) is an optimal control for (2.2) with a fixed terminal time \(t_{f} \), then there exists an adjoint vector \(\lambda (t)\) with five adjoint variables \(\lambda _{1}\), \(\lambda _{2}\), \(\lambda _{3}\), \(\lambda _{4}\), \(\lambda _{5}\), which is defined as
such that for all \(t \in [0,t_{f}]\), the following conditions are satisfied.

1.
The state variables are obtained from the below equations:
$$\begin{aligned}& \frac{dx}{dt} = \frac{\partial H(t, u_{1}^{*}, u_{2}^{*}, \lambda (t))}{\partial \lambda _{1}},\qquad \frac{dy}{dt}= \frac{\partial H(t, u_{1}^{*}, u_{2}^{*}, \lambda (t))}{\partial \lambda _{2}}, \\& \frac{dv}{dt} = \frac{\partial H(t, u_{1}^{*}, u_{2}^{*}, \lambda (t))}{\partial \lambda _{3}},\qquad \frac{dz}{dt}= \frac{\partial H(t, u_{1}^{*}, u_{2}^{*}, \lambda (t))}{\partial \lambda _{4}}, \\& \frac{dw}{dt} = \frac{\partial H(t, u_{1}^{*}, u_{2}^{*}, \lambda (t))}{\partial \lambda _{5}}. \end{aligned}$$ 
2.
The optimal control values \(u_{1}^{*} \) and \(u_{2}^{*} \) can be obtained from the optimality conditions:
$$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial H(t, u_{1}^{*}, u_{2}^{*}, \lambda (t))}{\partial u_{1}}=0, \qquad \frac{\partial H(t, u_{1}^{*}, u_{2}^{*}, \lambda (t))}{\partial u_{2}}=0. \end{aligned}$$(3.1) 
3.
The adjoint equations can be solved from
$$\begin{aligned}& \frac{d\lambda _{1}}{dt} = \frac{\partial H(t, u_{1}^{*}, u_{2}^{*}, \lambda (t))}{\partial x},\qquad \frac{d\lambda _{2}}{dt}= \frac{\partial H(t, u_{1}^{*}, u_{2}^{*}, \lambda (t))}{\partial y}, \\& \frac{d\lambda _{3}}{dt} = \frac{\partial H(t, u_{1}^{*}, u_{2}^{*}, \lambda (t))}{\partial v}, \qquad \frac{d\lambda _{4}}{dt}= \frac{\partial H(t, u_{1}^{*}, u_{2}^{*}, \lambda (t))}{\partial z}, \\& \frac{d\lambda _{5}}{dt} = \frac{\partial H(t, u_{1}^{*}, u_{2}^{*}, \lambda (t))}{\partial w}. \end{aligned}$$
According to the Pontryagin maximum principle, the Hamiltonian function H for our problem is defined as
The adjoint variables satisfy
Since \(\lambda _{i} (t_{f})=0\) for \(i=1, 2, 3, 4, 5\), they are called the transversality conditions.
Theorem 3.1
Consider the objective function \(J(u_{1}(t),u_{2}(t))\) defined in (2.2). Then, there exists an optimal control \((u_{1}^{*}(t),u_{2}^{*}(t)) \in U\) such that
Moreover, the optimal controls \(u_{1}^{*}\) and \(u_{2}^{*}\) maximizing the objective function (2.2) are given by
where \(x=x^{*}(t)\), \(y=y^{*}(t)\), and \(v=v^{*}(t)\) are the solutions of system (2.1).
Proof
From the results obtained by Fleming and Rishel [36], we can show the existence of the solution by using the following facts.

(i)
The set of all controls contained in U are nonnegative and Lebesgueintegrable on \([0, t_{f}]\).

(ii)
The righthand side of the system (2.1) is bounded by a linear function of the state and control variables, and thus the solutions exist.

(iii)
The set U is convex and closed.

(iv)
The integrand of the objective function, \(x(t)+z(t)+w(t)v(t)\frac{E_{1}}{2}u^{2}_{1}\frac{E_{2}}{2}u^{2}_{2} \), is concave on U. To prove this, we use the fact that a multivariable function as \(f(x_{1},\ldots , x_{n})\) is concave if and only if the Hessian matrix
$$ H(x)= \biggl[\frac{\partial ^{2} f(x)}{\partial x_{i} \partial x_{j}} \biggr], $$is seminegative definite. We set \({\mathcal{F}}(u_{1},u_{2})=x+z+wv\frac{E_{1}}{2}u^{2}_{1} \frac{E_{2}}{2}u^{2}_{2}\), which admits the Hessian matrix
\mathcal{H}(u)=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\frac{{\mathrm{\xe2\u02c6\u201a}}^{2}\mathcal{F}}{\mathrm{\xe2\u02c6\u201a}{u}_{1}^{2}}& \frac{{\mathrm{\xe2\u02c6\u201a}}^{2}\mathcal{F}}{\mathrm{\xe2\u02c6\u201a}{u}_{1}\mathrm{\xe2\u02c6\u201a}{u}_{2}}\\ \frac{{\mathrm{\xe2\u02c6\u201a}}^{2}\mathcal{F}}{\mathrm{\xe2\u02c6\u201a}{u}_{2}\mathrm{\xe2\u02c6\u201a}{u}_{1}}& \frac{{\mathrm{\xe2\u02c6\u201a}}^{2}\mathcal{F}}{\mathrm{\xe2\u02c6\u201a}{u}_{2}^{2}}\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\xe2\u02c6\u2019{E}_{1}& 0\\ 0& \xe2\u02c6\u2019{E}_{2}\end{array}\right].Since \(E_{1}, E_{2} \geq 0 \), we have that \(\mathcal{H}(u)\) is seminegative definite, and therefore, the result follows.

(v)
There exist constants \(a_{1}>0\), \(a_{2}>0\), and \(\beta >1\) such that the integrand \(L(t,x,y,v,z,w)\) of the objective function (2.2) is bounded by
$$ L(t,x,y,v,z,w)\leq a_{1}a_{2} \bigl( \vert u_{1} \vert ^{2}+ \vert u_{2} \vert ^{2} \bigr) ^{\beta /2}. $$(3.3)From (2.2), we have
$$ L(t,x,y,v,z,w)=x(t)+z(t)+w(t)v(t)\frac{E_{1}}{2}u^{2}_{1}(t) \frac{E_{2}}{2}u^{2}_{2}(t). $$(3.4)By taking \(E=\min \lbrace E_{1}, E_{2} \rbrace \) in (3.4), we find that
$$ L(t,x,y,v,z,w)\leq 3M\frac{E}{2} \bigl(u^{2}_{1}(t)+u^{2}_{2}(t) \bigr). $$Hence, we can write
$$ L(t,x,y,v,z,w)\leq a_{1}a_{2} \bigl(u^{2}_{1}(t)+u^{2}_{2}(t) \bigr), $$(3.5)where \(a_{1}=3M>0\), \(a_{2}=\frac{E}{2}>0\), and M is the upper bound of the state solutions \(x(t)\), \(z(t)\), \(w(t)\). This implies that the inequality (3.3) holds true with \(\beta =2>1\).
From the above statements (facts), we deduce the existence of the optimal controls \(u_{1}^{*} \) and \(u_{2}^{*} \). To obtain the expressions of \(u_{1}^{*}\) and \(u_{2}^{*}\), we use (3.1) with H defined in (3.2). This gives that
Hence, we find that
â€ƒâ–¡
4 Numerical simulation
In this section, we investigate the optimal control numerically for studying the effectiveness of the drug on disease. At first, we replace the values of the parameters of Column 1, Column 2, Column 3, and Column 4 of TableÂ 2 in model (2.1). Next, we choose the initial values from TableÂ 3 and set \(E_{1} = 1\), \(E_{2} = 10\), and \(t_{f}=10 \). To numerically solve the optimal control problem (2.1) and (2.2), we use the Applied Modeling Programming Language AMPL [37]. We work with a grid of \(N_{f} = 10 0 0 \) grid points with nodes \(t_{i} = i h\), \(h = \frac{t_{f}}{N_{f}}\), \(i = 0 , 1 ,\ldots , N_{f} \) and use the Euler method. The proliferation of infected cells and viruses for the values of Column 1 of TableÂ 2 are shown in Fig.Â 1(a)â€“(g). FigureÂ 2(a)â€“(g) shows that for the values of Column 2 of TableÂ 2, the amount of \(u_{1} \) and \(u_{2} \) affects the spread of disease. FigureÂ 3(a)â€“(g) illustrates that for the values of Column 3 of TableÂ 2, the effect of the drug on the proliferation of infected cells, viruses, cellular and humoral immunes.
In Fig.Â 4(a)â€“(b), the population of infected \(CD^{+}_{4} \) Tcells is represented in the presence of treatment control functions with an initial value of \(y(0)=80 \), which is initially reduced by the initial proliferation of the population of uninfected \(CD^{+}_{4} \) Tcells. By controlling the disease, the number of uninfected \(CD^{+}_{4} \) Tcells reaches the saturation level, and the population of infectious cells tends to zero. FigureÂ 4(c) shows that the proliferation of the virus in the presence of treatment is gradually reduced to zero. FigureÂ 4(d)â€“(e) depicts the level of proliferation of Tcells and Bcells in the presence of treatment, respectively. Finally, Fig.Â 4(f)â€“(g) represents the optimal controls \(u_{1}^{*} \) and \(u_{2}^{*}\) that simulate the reverse transcriptase and protease inhibitors for the values of Column 4 of TableÂ 2.
5 Conclusion
In the present paper, we considered a fivedimensional model with the logistic function for replicating \(CD_{4}^{+}\) T cells, the saturation infection rate, and the treatment rate with two control functions to control the HIV1 infection. There is no current definitive treatment for the HIV1 infection. However, at the same time, several methods of treatment have been developed to control it. Because of the high costs of the treatment and side effects of drugs, we should minimize the dosages of drugs in the treatment. To this end, we introduce two controllers to identify the efficiency of reverse transcriptase and protease inhibitors. We used numerical values of the parameters to evaluate the model. Numerical methods used are based on optimal control to prevent the spread of infection and the production of new virus particles with minimal side effects through medication. The Pontryagin maximum principle was employed to provide the explicit formulations of the optimal controls. The optimal control process was numerically tested by replacing the values of Columns 1â€“4 of TableÂ 2 in the model (2.1). The numerical simulation shows that the virus load stops after treatment, and the spread of infected cells is reduced. The above results were obtained by using AMPL software. Numerical results of the model show that the concentration of infected cells increases before treatment and decreases after treatment. The results suggest that the optimal amount of drugs effectively better control AIDS and minimize the side effects of drugs.
Availability of data and materials
The analysis in this article did not generate data.
References
Nelson, P.W., Murray, J.D., Perelson, A.S.: A model of HIV1 pathogenesis that includes an intracellular delay. Math. Biosci. 163(2), 201â€“215 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1016/S00255564(99)000553
Perelson, A.S., Nelson, P.W.: Mathematical analysis of HIV1 dynamics in vivo. SIAM Rev. 41(1), 3â€“44 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1137/S0036144598335107
Ali, N., Zaman, G., Algahtani, O.: Stability analysis of HIV1 model with multiple delays. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2016(1), 1 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s1366201608084
Ali, N., Zaman, G., Alqahtani, A.M., Alshomrani, A.S.: The effects of time lag and cure rate on the global dynamics of HIV1 model. BioMed Res. Int. 2017, Article ID 8094947 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/8094947.
Essunger, P., Perelson, A.S.: Modeling HIV infection of \(CD_{4}^{+}\) Tcell subpopulations. J. Theor. Biol. 170(4), 367â€“391 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1006/jtbi.1994.1199
Nowak, M.A., Bangham, C.R.: Population dynamics of immune responses to persistent viruses. Science 272(5258), 74â€“79 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.272.5258.74
Kirschner, D.E., Webb, G.F.: A mathematical model of combined drug therapy of HIV infection. J. Theor. Med. 1(1), 25â€“34 (1997)
Wodarz, D., Hamer, D.H.: Infection dynamics in HIVspecific \(CD_{4}^{+}\) T cells: does a \(CD_{4}^{+}\) Tcell boost benefit the host or the virus. Math. Biosci. 209(1), 14â€“29 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mbs.2007.01.007
Martin, N., Sattentau, Q.: Celltocell HIV1 spread and its implications for immune evasion. Curr. Opin. HIV AIDS 4(2), 143â€“149 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1097/COH.0b013e328322f94a
Huang, G., Takeuchi, Y., Ma, W.: Lyapunov functionals for delay differential equations model of viral infections. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 70(7), 2693â€“2708 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1137/090780821
Sigal, A., Kim, J.T., Balazs, A.B., Dekel, E., Mayo, A., Milo, R., Baltimore, D.: Celltocell spread of HIV permits ongoing replication despite antiretroviral therapy. Nature 477(7362), 95â€“98 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10347
Yan, Y., Wang, W.: Global stability of a fivedimensional model with immune responses and delay. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., Ser. B 17(1), 401â€“416 (2012). https://doi.org/10.3934/dcdsb.2012.17.401
Wang, Y., Zhou, Y., Brauer, F., Heffernan, J.M.: Viral dynamics model with CTL immune response incorporating antiretroviral therapy. J. Math. Biol. 67(4), 901â€“934 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s0028501205803
Fouts, T.R., Bagley, K., Prado, I.J., Bobb, K.L., Schwartz, J.A., Xu, R., Gallo, R.C.: The balance of cellular and humoral immunity determines the level of protection by HIV vaccines in rhesus macaque models of HIV infection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112(9), E992â€“E999 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1423669112
Kamboj, D., Sharma, M.D.: Effects of combined drug therapy on HIV1 infection dynamics. Int. J. Biomath. 9(05), 1650065 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793524516500650
EÅ‚aiw, A.M., Raezah, A.A., Hattaf, K.: Stability of HIV1 infection with saturated virustarget and infectedtarget incidences and CTL immune response. Int. J. Biomath. 10(05), 1750070 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1142/S179352451750070X
Lin, J., Xu, R., Tian, X.: Threshold dynamics of an HIV1 model with both viral and cellular infections, cellmediated, and humoral immune responses. Math. Biosci. Eng. 16(1), 292â€“319 (2018) https://www.aimspress.com/fileOther/PDF/MBE/mbe1601015.pdf
Zhou, X., Song, X., Shi, X.: A differential equation model of HIV infection of \(CD_{4}^{+}\) Tcells with cure rate. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 342(2), 1342â€“1355 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmaa.2008.01.008
Zhou, X., Song, X., Shi, X.: Analysis of stability and Hopf bifurcation for an HIV infection model with time delay. Appl. Math. Comput. 199(1), 23â€“38 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2007.09.030
Hattaf, K., Yousfi, N.: Dynamics of HIV infection model with therapy and cure rate. Int. J. Tomogr. Stat. 16(11), 74â€“80 (2011) http://www.ceser.in/ceserp/index.php/ijts/article/view/218
Perelson, A.S., Nelson, P.W.: Mathematical models of HIV dynamics in vivo. SIAM Rev. 41(1), 3â€“44 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1137/S0036144598335107
Mbogo, W.R., Luboobi, L.S., Odhiambo, J.W.: Stochastic model for inhost HIV dynamics with therapeutic intervention. Int. Sch. Res. Not. Biomath. 2013, Article ID 103708 (2013). https://downloads.hindawi.com/archive/2013/103708.pdf
Ogunlaran, O.M., Oukouomi Noutchie, S.C.: Mathematical model for an effective management of HIV infection. BioMed Res. Int. 2016, Article ID 4217548 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/4217548
Nampala, H., Luboobi, L.S., Mugisha, J.Y., Obua, C.: Mathematical modeling of liver enzyme elevation in HIV monoinfection. Math. Biosci. 242(1), 77â€“85 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mbs.2012.12.005
Karrakchou, J., Rachik, M., Gourari, S.: Optimal control and infectiology, application to an HIV/AIDS model. Appl. Math. Comput. 177(2), 807â€“818 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2005.11.092
Srivastava, P.K., Banerjee, M., Chandra, P.: Modeling the drug therapy for HIV infection. J. Biol. Syst. 17(02), 213â€“223 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218339009002764
Bakare, E.A., Nwagwo, A., DansoAddo, E.: Optimal control analysis of an SIR epidemic model with constant recruitment. Int. J. Appl. Math. Res. 3(3), 273â€“285 (2014). https://doi.org/10.14419/ijamr.v3i3.2872
Ali, N., Zaman, G., Alshomrani, A.S.: Optimal control strategy of HIV1 epidemic model for recombinant virus. Cogent Math. 4(1), 1293468 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311835.2017.1293468
Hattaf, K., Yousfi, N.: Two optimal treatments of HIV infection model. World J. Model. Simul. 8(1), 27â€“36 (2012)
Pontryagin, L.S.: Mathematical Theory of Optimal Processes. CRC Press, Boca Raton (1987)
Kaminski, R., Bella, R., Yin, C., Otte, J., Ferrante, P., Gendelman, H.E., Khalili, K.: Excision of HIV1 DNA by gene editing: a proofofconcept in vivo study. Gene Ther. 23(8), 690â€“695 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/gt.2016.41
Smith, H.L., De Leenheer, P.: Virus dynamics: a global analysis. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 63(4), 1313â€“1327 (2003) https://www.jstor.org/stable/4095962
Perelson, A.S.: Modeling the interaction of the immune system with HIV. In: Mathematical and Statistical Approaches to AIDS Epidemiology, vol. 83, pp. 350â€“370 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/978364293454417
Xu, R.: Global stability of an HIV1 infection model with saturation infection and intracellular delay. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 375(1), 75â€“81 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmaa.2010.08.055
Neilan, R.L.M., Schaefer, E., Gaff, H., Fister, K.R., Lenhart, S.: Modeling optimal intervention strategies for cholera. Bull. Math. Biol. 72(8), 2004â€“2018 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s1153801095218
Fleming, W.H., Rishel, R.W.: Deterministic and Stochastic Optimal Control. Springer, Berlin (2012)
Fourer, R., Gay, D.M., Kernighan, B.W.: AMPL, a modeling language for mathematical programming. Manag. Sci. 36(5), 519â€“554 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.36.5.519
Wang, J., Guo, M., Liu, X., Zhao, Z.: Threshold dynamics of HIV1 virus model with the celltocell transmission, cellmediated immune responses and distributed delay. Appl. Math. Comput. 291, 149â€“161 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2016.06.032
Tabit, Y., Hattaf, K., Yousfi, N.: Dynamics of an HIV pathogenesis model with CTL immune response and two saturated rates. World J. Model. Simul. 10(3), 215â€“223 (2014)
Tabit, Y., Meskaf, A., Allali, K.: Mathematical analysis of HIV model with two saturated rates, CTL and antibody responses. World J. Model. Simul. 12(2), 137â€“146 (2016)
Fister, K.R., Lenhart, S., McNally, J.S.: Optimizing chemotherapy in an HIV model. J. Differ. Equ. 32(1998), 1â€“12 (1998) https://digital.library.txstate.edu/handle/10877/7929
Butler, S., Kirschner, D., Lenhart, S.: Optimal control of chemotherapy affecting the infectivity of HIV. In: Advances in Mathematical Population Dynamics: Molecules, Cells, Man, pp. 104â€“120. World Scientific, Singapore (1997)
Wang, X., Wang, W.: An HIV infection model based on a vectored immunoprophylaxis experiment. J. Theor. Biol. 313, 127â€“135 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2012.08.023
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the chief editor, the associate editor, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback to improve the quality of this manuscript.
Funding
This work is supported by the Isfahan University of Technology.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The authors were equally involved in writing this paper and read the final copy and agreed to the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the articleâ€™s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the articleâ€™s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Akbari, N., Asheghi, R. Optimal control of an HIV infection model with logistic growth, celluar and homural immune response, cure rate and celltocell spread. Bound Value Probl 2022, 5 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13661022015861
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13661022015861