In the present paper convergence dynamics of one tumor-immune-virus model is examined with help of the localization method of compact invariant sets and the LaSalle theorem. This model was elaborated by Eftimie et al. in 2016. It is shown that this model possesses the Lagrange stability property of positive half-trajectories and ultimate upper bounds for compact invariant sets are obtained. Conditions of convergence dynamics are found. It is explored the case when any trajectory is attracted to one of tumor-only equilibrium points or tumor-free equilibrium points. Further, it is studied ultimate dynamics of one modification of Eftimie et al. model in which the immune cells injection is included. This modified system possesses the global tumor cells eradication property if the influx rate of immune cells exceeds some value which is estimated. Main results are expressed in terms simple algebraic inequalities imposed on model and treatment parameters.
Citation: Konstantin E. Starkov, Giovana Andres Garfias. Dynamics of the tumor-immune-virus interactions: Convergence conditions to tumor-only or tumor-free equilibrium points[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(1): 421-437. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019020
Related Papers:
[1]
Churni Gupta, Necibe Tuncer, Maia Martcheva .
Immuno-epidemiological co-affection model of HIV infection and opioid addiction. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(4): 3636-3672.
doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022168
[2]
Churni Gupta, Necibe Tuncer, Maia Martcheva .
A network immuno-epidemiological model of HIV and opioid epidemics. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(2): 4040-4068.
doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023189
[3]
Hui Jiang, Ling Chen, Fengying Wei, Quanxin Zhu .
Survival analysis and probability density function of switching heroin model. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(7): 13222-13249.
doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023590
[4]
Gerardo Chowell, Zhilan Feng, Baojun Song .
From the guest editors. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2013, 10(5&6): i-xxiv.
doi: 10.3934/mbe.2013.10.5i
[5]
Xi-Chao Duan, Xue-Zhi Li, Maia Martcheva .
Dynamics of an age-structured heroin transmission model with vaccination and treatment. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(1): 397-420.
doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019019
[6]
Christopher M. Kribs-Zaleta .
Sociological phenomena as multiple nonlinearities: MTBI's new metaphor for complex human interactions. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2013, 10(5&6): 1587-1607.
doi: 10.3934/mbe.2013.10.1587
[7]
Aditya S. Khanna, Dobromir T. Dimitrov, Steven M. Goodreau .
What can mathematical models tell us about the relationship between circular migrations and HIV transmission dynamics?. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2014, 11(5): 1065-1090.
doi: 10.3934/mbe.2014.11.1065
[8]
Cristian Tomasetti, Doron Levy .
An elementary approach to modeling drug resistance in cancer. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2010, 7(4): 905-918.
doi: 10.3934/mbe.2010.7.905
[9]
H. Thomas Banks, W. Clayton Thompson, Cristina Peligero, Sandra Giest, Jordi Argilaguet, Andreas Meyerhans .
A division-dependent compartmental model for computing cell numbers in CFSE-based lymphocyte proliferation assays. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2012, 9(4): 699-736.
doi: 10.3934/mbe.2012.9.699
[10]
Adam Peddle, William Lee, Tuoi Vo .
Modelling chemistry and biology after implantation of a drug-eluting stent. Part Ⅱ: Cell proliferation. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2018, 15(5): 1117-1135.
doi: 10.3934/mbe.2018050
Abstract
In the present paper convergence dynamics of one tumor-immune-virus model is examined with help of the localization method of compact invariant sets and the LaSalle theorem. This model was elaborated by Eftimie et al. in 2016. It is shown that this model possesses the Lagrange stability property of positive half-trajectories and ultimate upper bounds for compact invariant sets are obtained. Conditions of convergence dynamics are found. It is explored the case when any trajectory is attracted to one of tumor-only equilibrium points or tumor-free equilibrium points. Further, it is studied ultimate dynamics of one modification of Eftimie et al. model in which the immune cells injection is included. This modified system possesses the global tumor cells eradication property if the influx rate of immune cells exceeds some value which is estimated. Main results are expressed in terms simple algebraic inequalities imposed on model and treatment parameters.
Table 1.
Table of acronyms.
Acronym
Its Expansion
APA
American Psychological Association
CDC
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
DFE
Disorder-Free Equilibrium
DSM-IV
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition
EE
Endemic Equilibrium
HUD
Heroin Use Disorder
IOUD
Illicit Opioid Use Disorder
LHS
Latin Hypercube Sampling
NIH
National Institutes of Health
NSDUH
National Survey on Drug Use and Health
OUD
Opioid Use Disorder
PRCC
Partial Rank Correlation Coefficient
SAMSHA
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a monumental health concern in the United States and considered to be an epidemic, claiming over 100,000 lives due to overdose deaths from April 2020 to April 2021, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) [1]. Data collected by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA) showed that in 2020, opioids were misused by 9.5 million people (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2021)). Yet OUD is a constantly changing phenomenon that is in great need of not only improved treatment approaches, but also more refined tracking and prediction of opioid usage trends across distinct populations.
As a point of emphasis, several "waves" of the opioid surge in opioid abuse and opioid-related deaths have been observed over the past 30 years. This was first noted as an overprescription and overmarketing of opioid pain relievers by medical professionals and pharmaceutical industries. This led to implementation of a number of restrictions on opioid prescriptions, resulting in opioid-dependent individuals resorting to the use of less expensive and more easily accessible heroin. In more recent years, drug markets have been infiltrated by illicitly manufactured fentanyl, an extremely potent and potentially fatal opioid, into the drug supply. Currently, the opioid epidemic has been confounded by an increase in the concurrent use of psychostimulants such as cocaine and methamphetamine to counteract the highly sedating effects of opioids, as well as co-abuse of alcohol and benzodiazepines such as alprazolam (Xanax) to lessen the symptoms of opioid withdrawal [2].
1.1. Brain science and addiction
The term "opioids" refers to all chemicals that act on opioid receptors, which are proteins in the brain and body that are selectively activated by these molecules. Various subcategories of opioids include naturally occurring morphine, codeine and thebaine that is found in the opium poppy plant Papaver somniferum, semisynthetic opioids such as heroin, and fully synthetic opioids such as fentanyl and oxycodone. In addition to these exogenous opioids, throughout the body is a complex endogenous opioid system that utilizes natural peptide messengers such as endorphins to activate opioid receptors. The primary subtypes of opioid receptors are mu, delta and kappa opioid receptors (MOR, DOR and KOR, respectively; also referred to as μ, δ, and κ receptors), as well as opioid receptor like-1 (ORL1), which binds the endogenous opioid peptide nociceptin. Abused opioids act primarily, but not exclusively, at μ opioid receptors as agonists, activating the receptor to produce specific responses in the cells on which they reside (i.e., neurons, immune cells). Remedies for opioid overdose such as naloxone (Narcan) act by competitively blocking the binding of opioids to their receptors.
Addiction to opioids and other drugs of abuse are considered chronic relapsing conditions, and more recently have been described as diseases of the brain [3]. A disease can be defined as a circumstance that impairs the normal operations of a living organism or one of its components, and evidenced by specific characteristics and symptoms. The disease theory of addiction challenges prior notions that addiction is a moral failure or weakness of character, and has helped decrease the stigmatization of addiction and increase accessibility to treatment. However, the disease theory of addiction is not universally accepted, as it has been argued that it downplays individual accountability, the importance of psychosocial and environmental factors, underemphasizes the need for understanding brain recovery from addiction, and biases treatment approaches towards medical approaches over those that are more holistic or psychological in nature [4].
Regardless of which side of the disease model debate one is on, there is a wealth of evidence that chronic use of opioids fundamentally alters brain structure and function. For example, interactions and synchronization between specific neural circuits, specifically the prefrontal cortex which governs executive function and the limbic system which mediates emotions, are disrupted by chronic use of prescription opioids [5]. Chronic heroin use has been shown to reduce the volume of gray matter in the cerebral cortex and as well as that of the brain's reward circuitry [5]. On a more microscopic level, repeated use of morphine and other opioids can modify the fine delicate structures of neurons in various regions of the brain including those that comprise the brain's reward system [6]. Medication assisted therapies for opioid dependence, which utilize substitutes for the previously abused opioid, are administered in a supervised manner and are efficacious in reducing relapse, particularly when coupled with psychosocial support. Such medications include the long acting μ receptor agonist methadone and the partial μ receptor agonist buprenorphine (formulated as Suboxone). Future treatment approaches that are being considered include non-invasive neuromodulation techniques (i.e., transcranial magnetic stimulation, low intensity focused ultrasound), psychedelic assisted therapy, and digitally based interventions.
1.2. Mathematical epidemiological models
Mathematical epidemiological models have been used to study and track health issues and patterns in a wide variety of contexts [7,8]. In the context of this manuscript, previous work has examined the heroin epidemic (e.g., [9,10]) and opioid epidemic (e.g., [11]), and recent work has looked at an age-structured model for a drug addiction forecasting method that assimilates observational data of addiction and overdose mortality [12,13]. Our work does not venture into age structure to forecast but instead examines additional epidemiological classes in the epidemics where data is available, providing a more traditional epidemiological approach that can still be tested against data. This present work models the spread of heroin as a social contagion and and then extends this framework to examine illicit opioid drug use and abuse. We do not intend to assert that this model applies to the more general opioid epidemic where prescriptions are involved and we do not utilize such data. We instead focus only on illicit opioid use with an emphasis on heroin use. 'Social Contagion' is defined by the American Psychological Association (APA) Dictionary of Psychology as "the spread of behaviors, attitudes, and affect through crowds and other types of social aggregates from one member to another" [14]. While behavior of an individual is what classifies individuals in our model, we recognize that there are likely specific external conditions that trigger these conditions together with internal conditions that may perpetuate them. We have found studies whose results suggest that drug abuse can be transmitted in an environmentally mediated manner[15,16], although exactly how this happens for any drug is not yet known. To help shed additional light on this important question of how, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has recently created a grant mechanism to undertake investigations in understanding the social contagion of behavior and substance abuse [17]. While having an interaction with someone using illicit opioids is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for someone to transition from the susceptible class to using illicit opioids (since illicit opioid use can be self-induced, although the question then arises about how the illicit opioids were obtained), the spread of illicit drug use disorder across the population, the waves of opioid deaths, and recent studies suggesting drug abuse can be transmitted in an environmentally mediated manner all combine to support such an approach [15,16]. In addition, authors have studied mathematical models of drug use before from the perspective of the spread as a social contagion. A summary of those studies may be found in Cole and Wirkus [10].
This paper presents a mathematical model of nonlinear ordinary differential equations (ODE) to understand better the complex issues surrounding illicit OUD, its treatment options, and methods for decreasing relapse. By describing the spread of IOUD as a potential contagion, we assert that the IOUD treatment-relapse cycle is modeled within the context of disease epidemiology. Moreover, the dynamics underlying those patterns can best inform control.
2.
Materials and methods
2.1. Mathematical model
The population is divided into 6 classes: susceptible (S(t)), exposed (E(t)), treatment for the exposed (TE(t)), IOUD (I(t)), specialty treatment for IOUD (T(t)) (as defined by SAMHSA), and recovered (R(t)) at time t>2002. N=S+E+TE+I+T+R denotes the total population. The constant influx, Λ, into the susceptible population together with the remaining equations result in the overall population approaching a constant level. We refer to our model as the IOUD model with a casual user class. While our earlier model, found in Cole and Wirkus (2022) [10], focused on heroin use disorder (HUD) this present model extends the HUD model to an IOUD model due to availability of SAMHSA data and the similarities with HUD when only illicit use (and not prescription use) is considered. Additionally, we introduce two new compartments. First, the exposed class, E(t), holds the number of individuals who are using illicit opioids but do not have IOUD as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) [18].* The treatment class for the exposed (i.e., casual users), TE(t), holds the number of individuals who are considered exposed but are in specialty treatment as defined in SAMHSA [19]. The IOUD class, I(t), holds the number of individuals who are using illicit opioids and have IOUD as defined by the DSM-IV [18]. The treatment class for IOUD, T(t), holds the number of individuals who have IOUD. The recovered class, R(t), contains the number of individuals who had IOUD and either completed treatment, quit "cold turkey", or completed non-specialty treatment as defined in SAMHSA [19]. Finally, the susceptible class, S(t), holds the number of individuals susceptible to opioid use or misuse. These susceptible individuals may have passed through E or TE but not I, T, or R. We show the compartments and the interactions among them in Figure 1.
*While DSM-V was released in 2013 and provides updated guidance on various classifications and definitions, SAMHSA did not use it until their gathering and release of the 2020 data. This current manuscript concerns data up to 2019. Additionally, the phrase “dependence or abuse” was used up until 2014 in the SAMHSA data whereas the phrase “use disorder”, defined in DSM-V, was used beginning in 2015 with the note “Substance Use Disorder is defined as meeting criteria for illicit drug or alcohol dependence or abuse.”
Figure 1.
Flow diagram of the IOUD Model with a casual user class: arrows show the progression of the change of classes. S represents the susceptible individuals, E represents the exposed individuals, TE represents those exposed in specialty treatment, I represents individuals with IOUD, T represents those in specialty treatment for IOUD, and R represents recovered users. Due to a greater potential for relapse, R is considered distinct from S. Due to limited access to care, b(T,TE)=11+ϵT+ϵETE represents the reduced rate of entry into the TE and T class.
The recruitment rate into the susceptible population is denoted by Λ. The natural death rate for all classes is μ. The transmission rate from susceptibles to exposed due to an interaction with someone who has IOUD is denoted by β. The transmission rate from susceptibles to exposed due to an interaction with someone using illicit opioids but not considered having IOUD is denoted by βE. There are three avenues for someone from the exposed class to enter a specialty treatment facility. First, the rate of someone from the exposed class entering specialty treatment on their own accord is denoted by ψ1. Second, the rate of someone from the exposed class entering a specialty treatment facility due to an interaction with someone from the recovered class is denoted by ψ2. Third, the rate of someone from the exposed class entering a specialty treatment facility due to an interaction with someone from the susceptible class is denoted by ψ3. An exposed individual could also stop using illicit opioids on their own or in some non-specialty treatment facility and return to the susceptible class at a rate denoted by ζ. A previously exposed individual may complete specialty treatment and cycle back to the susceptibles by rate ρE; however, they may relapse from specialty treatment to using illicit opioids by rate κE. Lastly, an exposed individual could develop IOUD by rate χ and transfer to the IOUD class.
We now consider the remaining three classes identical to those considered in Cole and Wirkus (2022) [10]. Once an individual is in I (the IOUD class), there are three avenues that they could enter into a specialty treatment facility. First, the rate of someone from the IOUD class entering specialty treatment on their own accord is denoted by η1. Second, the rate of someone from the IOUD class entering a specialty treatment facility due to an interaction with someone from the recovered class is denoted by η2. Third, the rate of someone from the IOUD class entering a specialty treatment facility due to an interaction with someone from the susceptible class is denoted by η3. An IOUD individual could also stop using illicit opioids on their own or through a non-specialty treatment facility and transfer to the recovered class at a rate denoted by ω. An IOUD individual may complete specialty treatment and flow into the recovered class by rate ρ. However, they may relapse from specialty treatment to using illicit opioids at a rate κ. Finally, individuals in the recovered class may cycle back to the IOUD class. They either may relapse on their own accord at rate α1 or by the influence of someone in the IOUD class by rate α2.
There is an added death rate component due to overdose deaths. This added rate is δE for the exposed class, and for the IOUD class, the added rate is δ. The parameters δ and δE will be piecewise functions of time and not differentiable at the breakpoint. As will be discussed in the parameter estimation sections containing (2.3)–(2.4) and (2.6)–(2.7), function δ is continuous but just not-differentiable at point c, whereas δE has a jump discontinuity at point c.
Due to the limited access to care, a saturation treatment function limits the flow into the specialty treatment facilities. Because individuals in both the IOUD and E classes can enter treatment, the saturation term is a function of both: b(T,TE). Therefore, the saturation parameter corresponding to the casual users is ϵE, whereas the saturation term correlating to those in the IOUD class is ϵ.
We thus have the following deterministic system of nonlinear ordinary differential equations based on the previous assumptions, casual use of illicit opioids, illicit opioid use, treatment, and recovery:
where b(T,TE)=11+ϵT+ϵETE and all parameters are nonnegative. Table 2 gives a description of the variables. Table 3 gives a description of the parameters.
Table 2.
Description of variables of the IOUD model with a casual user class.
Since the IOUD model with a casual user class tracks physical entities, all associated parameters are nonnegative. We state the following two theorems, noting that the proofs are fairly standard and thus are not included (see, e.g., [20,21]).
Theorem 1 Local solutions to the IOUD model with a casual user class with initial data in the region
Ω={(S,E,TE,I,T,R)∈R6+:0<S,0<E,0<TE,0<I,0<T,0<R},
S(0)=S0>0,E(0)=E0>0,TE(0)=TE0>0,I(0)=I0>0,T(0)=T0>0,R(0)=R0>0,N(0)=N0>0, exist and are unique.
Theorem 2 Given N>0 and nonnegative initial conditions and parameter values, solutions to the IOUD model with a casual user class are nonnegative on the interval of existence.
Therefore the coordinate planes and hence the positive octant Ω={(S,E,TE,I,T,R)∈R6+:0<S,0<E,0<TE,0<I,0<T,0<R}, are invariant under the local flow.
2.3. Heroin only - data explanation and parameter estimation
To compare the model to data, we first consider using a heroin dataset (defined by the CDC as overdose death due to heroin-only or heroin mixed with synthetic opioids) that does not include non-heroin use. This section compares our model to data considering only the use of heroin or heroin mixed with synthetic opioids (e.g., fentanyl). Finally, we present the data used for the IOUD model with the casual user class for a heroin-only use dataset in Table 4.
Table 4.
Data for U.S., 2002–2020. The number of overdose deaths for 2002–2020 are from the CDC [22]. U.S. population comes from [23]. Use disorder and specialty treatment data come from SAMHSA's National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) [19,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33]. Data with an asterisk ∗ = Specialty treatment data × 0.6874 because specialty treatment from I only asked in 2014–2017 SAMHSA surveys. The factor 0.6874 is the average of the ratio of specialty treatment from I to specialty treatment in the 4 years when data is available.
Column 2 of Table 4 displays the yearly number of overdose deaths due to heroin as found by the CDC [22]. Column 4 gives the number of individuals who reported having heroin use disorder (HUD) within the past year as provided by the NSDUH. (See Table 4 for those references.) This data relates to the state variable I. Column 5 shows the number of individuals who reported to SAMHSA that they were in a specialty treatment facility due to heroin, regardless of whether they had HUD, within the past year. Column 6 gives a count of those individuals who reported to SAMHSA that they were in a specialty treatment facility due to HUD within the past year; this data was provided for 2014–2017. Hence, the data modified by the asterisk is the data in the previous column for 2004–2013 and 2018–2019, scaled by a factor of 0.6874. (This factor was found by averaging the data from the specialty treatment due to HUD divided by the specialty treatment due to heroin, regardless of HUD for the given data found.) This column relates to the state variable T. Subtracting column 6 from column 5 gives us data related to the state variable TE. Column 7 gives us the yearly count of those individuals who reported to SAMHSA that they had initiated heroin use for the first time within the past year. Column 8 shows a count of those individuals who said to SAMHSA that they used heroin within the past year, regardless if they had HUD. Column 4, subtracted from this column, gives us data related to our state variable E. Lastly, column 9 shows a count of the number of individuals who reported to SAMHSA that they used heroin within the past month, regardless of whether they had HUD.
The state variables E, TE, I, and T are instantaneous in time, whereas the SAMHSA data is not. SAMHSA gives a count over the year of those respective classes. Therefore, we correct comparing the data to the variables. The details on how we do this may be found in the Supplementary Information. It is a detailed explanation of how we added a correction to the I variable and the T variable to approximate SAMHSA's yearly count. Similarly, we use this method to find the corrections for the S, E, and TE variables.
Using the U.S. population (Table 4 column 3), we scale the national data to a city population of 200,000 individuals for the simulations: for the number of individuals in the HUD class, the number of individuals in specialty treatment from HUD, the number of individuals in specialty treatment from the casual user class, and the number of individuals in the casual user class. For example, in 2002, the HUD data would be calculated as (214,000/287.3 million)×200,000=148.97. We depict this value in the top middle graph of Figure 2. This rescaling provides for our analysis a nearly constant population to keep the focus on the dynamics of the problem. This is the data presented in our graphs of Figure 2 with the raw data given in Table 4. The error bars in the graphs represent the standard error given in the SAMHSA data (not presented in the table).
Figure 2.
Fitting model output to scaled data (with error bars when given) for heroin. The red squares are the SAMHSA data and the blue curves are the model output as described in the text. (Top Left): Heroin overdose deaths by year. (Top Middle) Individuals with heroin use disorder (HUD) in the last year. (Top Right) Those who entered specialty treatment from HUD in the past year. (Middle Left) Individuals who used heroin in the last year. (Middle Middle) Those who entered specialty treatment from the casual user class, E. (Middle Right) Those who reported using heroin for the first time (initiation from S to E). (Bottom Left) The effective reproductive number, Reff(t)=(R0⋅S(t)/N(t)). (Bottom Middle) Overdose death rate for HUD class: asterisks and X-marks are calculated from data (see text and Eq (2.6)). Both lines are calculated witqh a least squares fit. (Bottom Right) Overdose death rate for E Class: asterisks and X-marks are calculated from data (see text and Eq (2.7)).
For the data fitting, we have taken some parameter values for our model from the literature and performed a parameter estimation for the remaining parameters using MATLAB and its fmincon function. While few parameters in reality remain constant over time, our analysis of the data together with previous published work on similar models indicates that most of the parameters can be considered constant as reasonable first approximations[9,10,11]. Additional modeling could be done where some of the parameters could be considered time-dependent; however, with the exception of δ and δE, this is beyond the scope of this current work. First, we estimated parameter values and ranges for the IOUD with a casual user class from the literature noting that the time units are per year in all the rates. We used the natural yearly death rate for μ=1/80[9]. Next, we estimated our yearly recruitment rate, Λ=2500, for a population of 200,000, given the natural death rate, ignoring the additional deaths due to overdose (i.e., with δ=0). We used the approximated ranges from [11,34] for the yearly completed treatment rate, ρ, from a specialty treatment facility to the recovered class as 0.25–0.6. We assumed the yearly completed treatment rate, ρE, from a specialty treatment facility to the S class would be higher than ρ because casual users do not have opioid use disorder and may have a quicker recovery time. Hence, we chose a range of 0.5–2. We approximated from Weiss and Rao (2017), Bailey et al. (2013), and Smyth et al. (2010) [36,37] our range for the yearly relapse rate, κ, from the specialty treatment class back to the IOUD class as 0.18–4.0. We assumed that the yearly relapse rate, κE was 1–2 to fit in this range. We determine those that go to specialty treatment from the IOUD class by estimating η, the overall yearly rate, to be 0.1–2 [9,11], where we used the equation η=η1+η2(R/N)+η3(S/N). We set η2=0.7 and chose the range of 0.8–1.1 for η1 and 0.2–5 for η3. For the yearly relapse rates from the R class back to the I class we used a study by Gossop et al. (1989), who estimated a range for α of 0.1–1/3 [38,39]. However, additional research suggests the relapse rate is significantly higher due to the changes in the brain. Thus, we use the range of 0.1–1 for our αi[40,41]. We use a field of 0.05 to 0.3 for the parameter ω[9]. The ranges for β and βE, our yearly transmission rates, and ϵ and ϵE, our yearly saturation treatment parameters, were determined from Cole and Wirkus (2022) [10] and then determined via parameters estimation. Utilizing the SAMHSA and CDC data, we obtained the rates of the rest of the parameters via parameter estimation: χ, the yearly rate of individuals who go from being a casual user to an individual who now has OUD, ζ, the yearly rate of casual users going back to susceptibles, and ψ1, ψ2, and ψ3, yearly rates from E to TE.
We now examine δ and δE for the IOUD model with a casual user class using the heroin-only dataset. Battista et al. [11] first gave the definition of the death rate δ due to drug overdose; we refer the reader to Cole and Wirkus (2022) [10] for the modification of the definition's derivation for these parameters, and what we present here is in their final forms. We highlight the discussion in [10] whereby we concluded that δ could not be approximated as a constant as the bottom middle subfigure of Figure 2 illustrates. The data from SAMHSA is not perfectly geared for our model because the HUD and OUD are presented as "in the past year" yet the mathematical model gives variables continuous in time. For example, the mathematical model allows for an individual to leave HUD to go into treatment but then relapse back to HUD in the same year. This individual would not be able to overdose from heroin while in treatment but would be able to die from an overdose while using heroin. To address this, we assumed a simple inflow-outflow subdiagram (one for susceptible-casual—casual treatment, and another for HUD—treatment—recovered) presented in the Supplementary Information, that uses the SAMHSA data to estimate what percentage of the given class is actually in that class at any given time. The average ratio of the model output state variable I over the model calculation for each year (keeping track of individuals' movement in and out of classes) is 0.88 while for the variable E it is 0.41. In words, the multiplication factor of 0.88 in the denominator of δ for heroin use says that of the individuals that SAMHSA classifies as having HUD in the past year, 88% are in the HUD class at any given time with the remaining percentage either in treatment, having stopped using, or having died of an overdose. Finally, based on the data fit from parameter estimation, we estimate the number of HUD overdose deaths due to heroin as 0.89 for δ, and we approximate the number of HUD overdose deaths to heroin as 1 - 0.89 for δE. Thus, we have the following definitions.
δ=(total overdose deaths due to heroin per year)⋅(0.89 HUD overdose deaths due to heroin1 overdose death due to heroin)(number in the HUD class in past year)⋅(0.88).
(2.3)
and
δE=(total overdose deaths due to heroin per year)⋅(1 - 0.89 HUD overdose deaths due to heroin1 overdose death due to heroin)(number in the casual user class in past year)⋅(0.41).
(2.4)
Incorporating these piecewise functions for δ and δE into our parameter estimation, our baseline values are
ζ=3.15,χ=1.1,ψ1=2.42,ψ2=2.16,ψ3=2.37} via parameter estimation, β=0.47,βE=0.3ϵ=0.02,ϵE=0.01}via parameter estimation with ranges based on previous paper, κ=1.1,κE=0.701,μ=.0125,ρ=0.45,ρE=0.8,ω=0.1,α1=0.894,α2=0.8,η1=1.0,η2=0.7,η3=0.6}via estimation from the literature, Λ=2500} for a city of≈200,000.
(2.5)
Our initial conditions, chosen to approximately pair with the scaled data are S0=199,800,E0=26,TE0=16,I0=132,T0=45,R0=96. The data match is provided in Figure 2.
2.4. All-illicit opioids dataset - data explanation and parameter estimation
This section compares the IOUD model with a casual user class to data using all-illicit opioids. Data for the all-illicit opioids dataset is given in Tables 5 and 6. Additionally, we fit the IOUD model with casual users to the new dataset. We use data found in SAMHSA for the IOUD model with the casual user class for an all-illicit opioid use dataset (CDC data includes heroin). The following discussion references the data presented in Table 5. Column 2 of Table 5 displays the yearly number of overdose deaths due to all opioids, as found by the CDC [42]. Column 3 gives a count of those individuals who reported having substance use disorder (SUD) within the past year due to the use of pain medications as given by the NSDUH. (See Table 5 for those references.) Column 4 shows a count of those individuals who reported having HUD within the past year given by the NSDUH. Column 5 counts those individuals who reported to SAMHSA, given only for 2015–2019, that they had OUD within the past year (whether due to heroin or pain medication). Given the five years of data in column 5, we found a formula to approximate the data for the missing years of column 5 using columns 3 and 4. This formula (Column 3 × 0.87 + Column 4) fills in the absent years of column 5 (marked with an asterisk), and that is the data used for our state variable I. We found the factor 0.87 gave the best fit and, for the known years, gives approximately 2364.1 (vs. known 2375), 2116.1 (vs. known 2144), 2111.9 (vs. known 2110), 1999.8 (vs. known 2028), and 1626.4 (vs. known 1622). Therefore, an interpretation of 0.87 is that 87% of those diagnosed with SUD for pain medication have SUD for opioids; SAMHSA defines all heroin use disorders as being in the OUD class.
Table 5.
Data for U.S., 2003–2019: overdose deaths, use disorder, and use in past year. Numbers in thousands for all data values. The number of overdose deaths for 2003–2020 are from the CDC [22]. Pain medication use disorder, heroin use disorder, opioid use disorder, and use in past year data come from SAMHSA's NSDUH [19,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33]. Data with an asterisk (*) are missing data and are calculated from other columns as described in the text. See the text for discussions of these categories.
Table 6.
Data for U.S., 2003–2019: initiation and specialty treatment. Numbers in thousands for all data values. Pain medication initiation, heroin initiation, and specialty treatment data come from SAMHSA's NSDUH [19,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33]. Data with an asterisk (*) are missing data and are calculated from other columns as described in the text. See the text for discussions of these categories.
Column 6 gives the counts by SAMHSA of those individuals who disclosed pain medication use within the past year. Column 7 shows the counts of those individuals who reported heroin use by SAMHSA within the past year. Column 8 counts those individuals who reported to SAMHSA, given for 2015–2019, illicit opioid use within the past year (whether heroin use or opioid pain medication use). We found a formula to approximate the data for the missing years of column 8 using columns 6 and 7. This formula (Column 6 × 0.95 + Column 7) fills in the absent years of column 8 (and is marked with an asterisk). Comparing this formula with the known data years gives 12,666.9 (vs. known 12,693), 11,889.2 (vs. known 11,824), 11,409.2 (vs. known 11,401), 10,258.6 (vs. known 10,250), and 9982.8 (vs. known 10,065). An interpretation of 0.95 is that 95% of those who misused pain medication in the past year specifically misused opioid pain medication; SAMHSA defines all heroin users as opioid misusers. With this column filled in, we subtract column 5 (approximated and existing values) from the values of column 8 (approximated and existing values) to find our state variable E.
The following discussion references the data presented in Table 6.
Column 2 gives us the yearly count of those individuals who reported to SAMHSA having initiated illicit pain medication use for the first time within the past year. Column 3 gives us the yearly count of those individuals who disclosed to SAMHSA having started heroin use for the first time within the past year. Unfortunately, SAMHSA provided no data for years of initiation of illicit opioid use. We thus "guess" that the same factor used to determine opioid misuse from known pain medication misuse and heroin use can give an approximation for initiation to illicit opioid use. Thus, we use the formula to find initiation as Column 2 × 0.95 + Column 3.
Column 4 gives us the yearly count of those individuals who reported to SAMHSA having entered a specialty treatment facility due to heroin use within the past year. Column 5 gives us the yearly count of those individuals who reported to SAMHSA having entered a specialty treatment facility due to pain medication use within the past year. Column 6 gives us the yearly count of those individuals with HUD due to heroin use who reported to SAMHSA having entered a specialty treatment facility within the past year. Column 7 gives us the yearly count of those individuals with OUD due to illicit pain medication use who reported to SAMHSA having entered a specialty treatment facility within the past year. Finally, column 8 gives us the yearly count of those individuals with OUD (due to heroin or pain medication) who reported to SAMHSA for 2016 and 2017, having entered a specialty treatment facility within the past year.
We use the data values in columns 4 through 8 to calculate data related to our state variables TE and T. The values for specialty treatment from I for heroin are in column 6 of Table 2. We refer the reader to that section of the text to explain data calculation for the absent years. Using the values from column 6 of Table 4 and columns 7 and 8 of Table 6, we find the data for our state variable T. Given column 8 from Table 6; we found a formula to approximate the data for the missing years. This formula (Column 7 × 0.71 + Column 6) fills in the unaccounted-for values of column 8 (and is marked with an asterisk). For the only two years given by SAMHSA (2016 and 2017), the formula applied gives 453.0 (vs. 453) and 603.7 (vs. 603).
To find values for specialty treatment from opioids, we use the formula (Column 5× 0.83 + Column 4), where the factor of 0.83 is the average of the factor used to find the specialty treatment from I data and the use in year data. (We have no data to compare; using 0.71 slightly altered the numbers (e.g., 316.5 vs. 343.6 in the year 2003), but the parameter estimation was primarily affected in the ψ terms.) Then, with the values for the specialty treatment from opioids, we subtract the values of the T data per year, and that result gives us the corresponding values for our state variable TE.
The state variables E, TE, I, and T are instantaneous in time, whereas the SAMHSA data is not. SAMHSA gives a cumulative count of those respective classes. Therefore, we apply a correction when comparing the data to the variables (see Supplemental Information). We explain the computations for these corrections in the analogous heroin-only section. These explanations are precisely the same for comparing our model to the all-illicit opioids dataset.
As in heroin-only section, we consider a city with a population size of 200,000 individuals and scale the corresponding data for this set for the simulations. Parameter ranges used are the same as the values discussed in the analogous heroin-only section, except for ω. We extended the range for this parameter from 0.05 to 1.3 because the SAMSHA data showed a higher number of individuals in the general treatment versus the specialty treatment facilities.
Analogous to the section for the heroin-only dataset, we define δ and δE:
δ=(total overdose deaths due to opioids per year)⋅(0.91 IOUD overdose deaths due to heroin1 overdose death due to opioids)(number in the IOUD class in past year)⋅(0.883).
(2.6)
and
δE=(total overdose deaths due to opioids per year)⋅(1 - 0.91 IOUD overdose deaths due to opioids1 overdose death due to opioids)(number in the casual user class in past year)⋅(0.786).
(2.7)
As in the heroin datasets, we note that the data used in the definition of the death rate suggest a piecewise function; see bottom middle subfigure of Figure 9. Incorporating these piecewise functions for δ and δE into our parameter estimation, our baseline values are
ζ=1.5,χ=0.21,ψ1=0.01,ψ2=0.2,ψ3=0.05} via parameter estimation, β=0.25,βE=1.646ϵ=0.001,ϵE=0.0104}via parameter estimation with ranges based on previous paper, κ=1,κE=1.3,μ=0.0125,ρ=0.6,ρE=1.1,ω=1.2α1=0.3,α2=0.01,η1=0.14,η2=0.1,η3=0.12}via estimation from the literature, Λ=2500} for a city of≈200,000.
(2.8)
Our initial conditions, chosen to approximately pair with the scaled data are S0=199,600,E0=3240,TE0=48,I0=769,T0=71,R0=325. The data match is provided in Figure 9.
2.5. Basic reproduction number
To better understand the dynamics of transmission, the basic reproduction number R0 is computed and analyzed. R0 is the number of secondary cases produced by one infectious individual introduced into a population of wholly susceptible individuals during their infectious period.
The R0 for the IOUD model with a casual user class (2.1) calculated using the next generation method as presented in Van den Driessche & Watmough (2002) [43] is as follows: R0=R1+R2, where
RSITR0 represents the basic reproduction number for the IOUD model without a casual user class in Cole and Wirkus (2022) [10] and duplicated here for convenience to the reader.
Shown in the flow diagram, Figure 1, is how the compartments S, E, and TE are coupled to I, T, and R, through E going to I. We see this connection in the reproduction number. The terms R1 and R2 are analyzed analogously to "Reproduction numbers of infectious disease models" by Pauline van den Driessche (2017) [44]. If we introduce an individual into the I class (i.e., one infected person into the population), then that individual's influence has two parts described as follows:
PART 1 (R1): The introduction of the infected person into the population may influence someone from S into E. Therefore, this first part provides the contributions attributed to the E class.
PART 2 (R2): This part provides the contributions attributed from the I class as before in Cole and Wirkus (2022) [10], whereas the first factor describes the proportion of individuals from the E class.
2.6. Endemic equilibria
To proceed in determining the existence of non-trivial endemic equilibria of our IOUD model with a casual user class, the system is set to the steady-state population level, denoted by N∗. Since the total population is driven by dNdt=Λ−μN−δI−δEE, the steady-state population level is reached at N∗=Λ−Iδ−δEEμ. This substitution results in the following system of equations:
We numerically found parameter regimes of bistability, that is, where both Disorder-Free Equilibrium (DFE) and Endemic Equilibrium (EE) exist biologically and are stable for both heroin-only and illicit opioid datasets. We tried to obtain an explicit numerical approximation to the analytical curve separating the region of bistability from EE-only stability using the method from Cole and Wirkus (2022) [10] that successfully gave analytical curves for the regions of bistability: Using Maple, an equation is obtained by setting d˜Sdt=0 and then solving for S∗; this result is substituted into d˜Edt=0, d~TEdt=0, d˜Tdt=0 and d˜Rdt=0; E∗, T∗E, T∗ and R∗ are solved simultaneously. However, this step was not able to be solved by Maple. We use parameter values obtained from the heroin-only dataset, which one could refer to the baseline values (2.5), and then the all-illicit opioids dataset, which one could refer to the baseline values (2.8), for the ensuing investigation. We extrapolate the δ values and δE values for the two overdose death rates; see left panels of Figure 3 for the heroin-only dataset and Figure 4 for the all-illicit opioids dataset. Next, we determine the effective reproductive number Reff(t)=(R0⋅S(t)/N0); see top right panel in Figures 3 and 4. For a range of overdose death rates, we numerically observed bistability. That is, with realistic parameter values and the δ and δE values extrapolated to future values; for example their 2026 values (δ≈0.0501, δE≈0.0105), we found both the DFE and an EE were stable. For the heroin-only dataset, we see that Reff becomes less than 1 during 2024 and for the all-illicit opioids dataset Reff becomes less than 1 in year 2044. Given the large number of parameters that have been estimated, which have natural temporal variability, we only extrapolate 10 years (to 2030) to lessen the chances of erroneous conclusions and generalizations. To this end, the bottom right subfigure of Figures 3 and 4 shows a plot of Reff with an envelope of ±10% of the baseline parameter values where each significant parameter (determined by LHS-PRCC) was changed + or − 10% in the direction that it most influences Reff. Including a stochastic approach would be another way to take into account the randomness in future extensions of this work; see e.g., [45].
Figure 3.
Heroin death rate and effective reproductive number. (Top Left): Extrapolated δ-values. The black X-marks and asterisks are from the heroin-only overdose data and are found in Figure 2; the extrapolated δ-values and corresponding piecewise curve are represented in black. The magenta marks and piecewise curve represented are for the extrapolated δ-values using the parameter values from the HUD model in Cole and Wirkus (2022) [10]. (Bottom Left): extrapolated δE-values. The black X-marks and asterisks are from the heroin-only overdose data and are found in Figure 2; the extrapolated δE-values and corresponding piecewise curve are represented in black. The magenta marks and piecewise curve represented are for the extrapolated δE-values using the parameter values from the HUD model in Cole and Wirkus (2022) [10]. (Top Right): The effective reproductive number, Reff(T)=(R0⋅S(T)/N(T)), is plotted as the solid black curve using the baseline values of the parameters of the heroin dataset, (2.5) and the extrapolated δ-values are from the best fit line. Just above the Reff curve, R0 is plotted as a dashed blue curve; also plotted in magenta is the curve from the original HUD model without the casual user class in Cole and Wirkus (2022) [10]. (Bottom Right): Parameters found for which R0 is most sensitive to are varied 10% in the direction of their greatest influence on R0 to give an envelope surrounding Reff.
Figure 4.
Illicit opioid death rate and effective reproductive number. (Top Left): Extrapolated δ-values. The black X-marks and asterisks are from the all-illicit opioids overdose data and are found in Figure 9. The extrapolated δ-values and curve are represented in magenta. (Bottom Left): Extrapolated δE-values. The black X-marks and asterisks are from the all-illicit opioids overdose data and are found in Figure 9. (Top Right): The effective reproductive number, Reff(t)=(R0⋅S(t)/N(t)), is plotted as the solid black curve using the baseline values of the parameters of the all-illicit opioids dataset, (2.8) and the extrapolated δ-values from the best fit line. Just above the Reff curve, R0 is plotted as a dashed blue curve. (Bottom Right): Parameters found for which R0 is most sensitive to are varied 10% in the direction of their greatest influence on R0 to give an envelope surrounding Reff.
We execute a sensitivity analysis using the Partial Rank Correlation Coefficient (PRCC) methodology [46] to determine the input parameter's system's sensitivity and use Latin hypercube sampling (LHS) to allow for a ±10% uncertainty in the parameter inputs. For the study, we use the parameter values captured through the parameter estimation and the literature given in (2.5) for heroin and (2.8) for illicit opioids as our baseline values for 2020. We vary the parameters and initial conditions by ±10% from their baseline values.
3.1. Heroin only analysis
Discussion of the PRCC values
There must be a monotonic relationship between the output values and model parameters when measuring sensitivity for the PRCC method [46]. Therefore, we performed monotonicity checks for all initial conditions and parameter values.
For the yearly number of casual users who enter the HUD class, a monotonic relationship for all variables and initial conditions was concluded from 2022 to 2040 for the constant and variable death rates.
For the yearly number of relapses from T counts variable, plots were non-monotonic for several years for some of the parameters and initial conditions. For the constant and variable death rate, the yearly number of relapses from T was not monotonic in the initial condition TE(0) from 2022 to 2024, and it was not monotonic in the parameter ρE from 2028 to 2030; however, neither of these showed up as significant on the PRCC graphs for the relapse T variable.
For the yearly number of relapses from R counts variable, plots were non-monotonic for several years for some of the parameters and initial conditions. For both the constant and the variable death rate, the yearly number of relapses from R was not monotonic in Λ from 2026 to 2028; however, this parameter did not show up as significant on the PRCC graphs for the relapse R variable. For the constant death rate, the yearly number of relapses from R was not monotonic in ϵ from 2034 to 2036, but this parameter showed up as insignificant during this time period on the PRCC graph for the relapse R variable. For the constant death rate, the yearly number of relapses from R was not monotonic in ρE from 2024 to 2026, but this parameter did not show up as significant on the PRCC graphs for the relapse R variable. For the constant and variable death rate, the yearly number of relapses from R was not monotonic in S(0) from 2022 to 2024; on the other hand, this parameter did not show up as significant on the PRCC graphs for the relapse R variable. For the constant death rate, the yearly number of relapses from R was not monotonic in ϵE from 2034 to 2036; however, this parameter did not show up as significant on the PRCC graphs for the relapse R variable. For the constant and variable death rate, the yearly number of relapses from R was not monotonic in TE(0) from 2022 to 2024, but this parameter did not show up as significant on the PRCC graphs for the relapse R variable. For the variable death rate, the yearly number of relapses from R was not monotonic in the parameter ϵ from 2036 to 2038; on the other hand, this parameter did not show up as significant during this time period on the PRCC graph for the relapse R variable. For the variable death rate, the yearly number of relapses from R was not monotonic in the parameter ρE from 2036 to 2038; however, this parameter did not show up as significant on the PRCC graph for the relapse R variable. For the variable death rate, the yearly number of relapses from R was not monotonic in the parameter ϵE from 2024 to 2026 for the relapse R variable; however, this parameter did not show up as significant on the PRCC graphs for the relapse R variable.
Finally, we checked the monotonicity results for the yearly number of opioid overdose deaths. For the constant and variable death rate, the yearly number of opioid overdose deaths was not monotonic in Λ from 2022 to 2024, although this parameter did not show up as significant on the PRCC graphs for the yearly number of opioid overdose deaths. For the variable death rate, the yearly number of opioid overdose deaths was not monotonic in the parameter b from 2036 to 2038, but this parameter showed up as not significant during this time period on the PRCC graph for the yearly number of opioid overdose deaths.
As the theory requires, we do not use results of significance for the parameters in the years where monotonicity fails. Similarly, in the ensuing discussion, we don't consider the variables for the parameters in the years when monotonicity fails.
This following discussion presents variables of interest to the healthcare industry and policymakers. The focus will be on the yearly number of casual users who enter the HUD class for the first time, the yearly number of individuals who relapse from the T class, the yearly number of individuals who relapse from the R class, and the number of yearly opioid overdose deaths due to heroin. Although these variables are not of the original system of equations, we calculate them by keeping track of their cumulative yearly totals.
Four graphs for each case correspond to the sensitivities for the constant death rates (at their 2020 values) in 2030 and 2040 (δ=0.0343 and δE = 0.0078) versus the variable death rate in 2030 and 2040.
As was done in Cole and Wirkus (2022) [10], but duplicated here for the reader's convenience, we will refer to the sensitivity results as being "highly significant" if it has a PRCC value of 0.85 or higher, "significant" if it has a PRCC value of 0.70–0.84, "somewhat significant" if it has a PRCC value of 0.55–0.69, "slightly significant" if it has a PRCC value of 0.45–0.54, "borderline significant" if it has a PRCC value of 0.40–0.44, and "not significant" if it has a PRCC value of under 0.40. The significance of the initial conditions will also not be discussed as reasoned in Cole and Wirkus (2022) [10]. Additionally, only parameters that may be changed due to external influence will be discussed.
Yearly new I from E:
The variable Yearly new I from E gives the count of the number of casual users from the E class who entered the I (HUD) class; see Figure 5 and Table 7. The comparisons of the PRCC values graphs are similar, and the discussion will be relevant for all four unless otherwise noted. The analysis ranked three parameters highly significant. β (transmission rate of moving to E from S through interaction with someone from I) is positively correlated. An increase in this transmission rate would cause an increase in the number of individuals who transition into the casual user E class, as expected. χ (the rate of individuals in E that transition to I) is also positively correlated. An increase in this rate would also cause an increase in the number of individuals entering the I class, as expected. Not only are more individuals entering I, but there are also more individuals interacting with S to influence them into E. ζ (The rate of individuals in E returning to S) is negatively correlated. Hence, as expected, lowering this rate would decrease the number of individuals entering the I class. Thus, it is recommended in the short and long term to reduce the rate of transmission of those casual users leading to IOUD and increase the rate that casual users stop using by entering back into the S class. At the year-end of 20 years, two parameters ranked somewhat significant, δ (HUD overdose death rate) and b (one of the parameters for the variable death rate). They are negatively correlated, so increasing these rates would decrease the number of individuals entering the I class. However, we ethically would not want the individuals entering the I class to drop in this manner; therefore, it would be beneficial to concentrate on the other ones.
Figure 5.
Heroin Data: PRCC results over time for those who are entering I for the first time, with grayed region denoting a lack of significance. These results are summarized in the text and in Table 7. The left figures have a final time of 2030 whereas the right figures have a final time of 2040. The top figures keep δ and δE constant at their 2020 values whereas the bottom figures use the extrapolation functions for δ and δE.
Table 7.
Heroin Only Data: PRCC results for movement into I, relapse from T, relapse from R, and yearly deaths using the baseline parameters and initial conditions and using either the constant δ or the variable δ. The PRCC values are given at year end time of 2030 and year end time of 2040. Table values without an entry are not significant or undefined (in the case of m and b for the constant death rate and δ and δE for the variable death rate). The corresponding graphs for this Table are given in Figures 5–8.
The variable yearly relapse T gives the count of the individuals who relapsed from the T class back to the I class; see Figure 6 and Table 7. The graphs for the year end of 2030 for both death rates are similar. The parameter κ (rate of individuals leaving treatment and returning to I) is ranked highly significant. Since it is positively correlated, increasing this rate will increase the number of individuals who relapse from T back to I. The parameters β (transmission rate of moving to E from S through interaction with someone from I), χ (the rate of individuals in E that transition to I), and η1 (rate of individuals in I who enter specialty treatment on their own) are ranked significant and are positively correlated. Hence, a decrease in these rates would cause a reduction in the number of individuals who relapse from T. Although we want to see a drop, we still wish for individuals to enter into treatment even if they may retreat to I; hence, we do not consider it beneficial to decrease η1. The parameters ζ (rate of individuals in E returning to S), ϵ (saturation term for entering a specialty treatment facility), and ρ (rate of individuals leaving treatment and entering the recovered class) came up as somewhat significant and all are negatively correlated. Thus, an increase in these parameters would decrease the yearly relapse T counts. Since an increase in ϵ would lower the limit of available treatment facilities, we would not focus on this parameter since we want individuals to get into treatment. Hence, in the short term of ten years, decreasing the relapse rate from T, decreasing the rate of casual users ending up with OUD, reducing the transmission rate of the HUD class, increasing the rate of casual users returning to the S class, and increasing the rate of individuals who complete treatment are all beneficial avenues for decreasing the yearly relapse T counts. The graphs for the year end of 2040 are similar with a few differences. The significance of parameters β and ζ increased, and they were the most significant parameters. Although κ decreased in relevance, it remained highly influential. As with the variable yearly new I from E variable, the parameters δ and b were ranked as somewhat significant in the long term and negatively correlated. Similarly, we do not want death by overdose to decrease the counts.
Figure 6.
Heroin: PRCC results over time for the number of those individuals who relapsed from T and went back to I, with grayed region denoting a lack of significance. These results are summarized in the text and in Table 7. The left figures have a final time of 2030 whereas the right figures have a final time of 2040. The top figures keep δ and δE constant at their 2020 values whereas the bottom figures use the extrapolation functions for δ and δE.
The variable yearly relapse R gives the count of the individuals who relapsed from the R class back to the I class; see Figure 7 and Table 7. The graphs are similar for both death rates for 2030 and 2040. The highly significant parameters are β (transmission rate of moving to E from S through interaction with someone from I) and χ (rate of individuals in E that transition to I); both are positively correlated. Hence, as expected, increasing these rates would increase the number of individuals who relapse to I from the recovered class. Increasing those values would result in an overall increase in the number of individuals who would enter I and then possibly flow into the recovered class either directly or indirectly through a specialty treatment facility. The parameter ρ (rate of individuals leaving specialty treatment and entering the recovered class) ranked as significant to highly significant. As expected, since it is positively correlated, increasing this rate would increase the number of yearly relapse R counts. The parameter ω (rate of individuals in I who enter R by either completing treatment in non-specialty facilities or "quitting cold turkey") ranked significant. Positively correlated, a decrease in those directly entering the R class from I would decrease the Yearly relapse R counts. However, this reduction would reduce the overall number of individuals in R. The goal is always to move individuals out of the I class in beneficial ways, even if the relapse count could be higher. Hence, we do not consider decreasing ω. The parameter ζ (rate of individuals in E returning to S) ranked as significant. Negatively correlated, increasing this parameter would reduce the yearly relapse R counts. For the year-end of 20 years and the variable death rate, this parameter increased its significance over time to a ranking of highly significant. The parameter α1 (rate of individuals in R relapsing to I on their own accord) ranked as somewhat influential. Since this parameter is positively correlated, decreasing the rate reduces the yearly relapse R counts. Hence, in the short and long term, it would be best to focus on reducing the HUD class transmission rate, lowering the rate of individuals entering I from E, increasing the rate of return from E to S, and decreasing the relapse rate of R for those relapsing on their own accord.
Figure 7.
Heroin: PRCC results over time for the number of those individuals who relapsed from R and went back to I, with grayed region denoting a lack of significance. These results are summarized in the text and in Table 7. The left figures have a final time of 2030 whereas the right figures have a final time of 2040. The top figures keep δ and δE constant at their 2020 values whereas the bottom figures use the extrapolation functions for δ and δE.
As with the previous variables, the parameters δ and m showed somewhat significant in the long run and were negatively correlated. Additionally, b ranked as sensitive. We again reiterate that we do not want death by overdose to be the reason for a decrease in the counts.
Yearly deaths:
The variable yearly deaths count the number of HUD overdose deaths from the E class and the I class; see Figure 8 and Table 7. The comparisons of the PRCC values graphs are similar, and the discussion will be relevant for all four plots unless otherwise noted. Three parameters ranked highly significant. First, β (transmission rate of moving to E from S through interaction with someone from I) is positively correlated. An increase in this transmission rate would cause an increase in the number of HUD overdose deaths, as expected. Second, χ (rate of individuals in E that transition to I) is also positively correlated. An increase in this rate would also cause an increase in the number of HUD overdose deaths, as hypothesized. Finally, ζ (rate of individuals in E returning to S) is negatively correlated. Hence, as one would predict, decreasing this rate would decrease the number of HUD overdose deaths. Therefore, it is recommended in the short and long term to reduce the HUD transmission rate, decrease the rate of casual users with OUD, and increase the rate that casual users stop using and enter back into the S class.
Figure 8.
Heroin: PRCC results over time for the number of yearly deaths due to illicit opioid use, with grayed region denoting a lack of significance. These results are summarized in the text and in Table 7. The left figures have a final time of 2030 whereas the right figures have a final time of 2040. The top figures keep δ and δE constant at their 2020 values whereas the bottom figures use the extrapolation functions for δ and δE.
Figure 9.
Fitting model output to scaled data (with error bars when given) for all-illicit opioids. The red squares are the SAMHSA data and the blue curves are the model output as described in the text. (Top Left): Illicit opioid overdose deaths by year. (Top Middle) Individuals with illicit opioid use disorder (IOUD) in the last year. (Top Right) Those who entered specialty treatment from IOUD in the past year. (Middle Left) Individuals who used illicit opioids in the last year. (Middle Middle) Those who entered specialty treatment from the illicit opioid casual user class, E. (Middle Right) Those who reported using illicit opioids for the first time (initiation from S to E). (Bottom Left) The effective reproductive number, Reff(t)=(R0⋅S(t)/N(t)). (Bottom Middle) Overdose death rate for IOUD class: asterisks and X-marks are calculated from data (see text and Eq (2.6)). Both lines are calculated with a least squares fit. (Bottom Right) Overdose death rate for E Class: asterisks and X-marks are calculated from data (see text and Eq (2.7)).
The parameter δ (HUD overdose death rate) ranked highly significant for the constant death rate at year-end of ten years. Since it was positively correlated, an increase in the death rate would increase the number of yearly death counts, as expected. However, at the year-end of 20 years, for the constant death rate, δ showed up as only slightly significant. Counter-intuitively, the significance of this parameter decreased as time went on. An interpretation would be that the consequence of a high death rate leading to a higher number of overdose deaths led to fewer users in the I class over time. As a result, there are fewer individuals in I to interact with susceptibles. Therefore, this parameter is less sensitive in the long run because the number of influenced individuals decreases, leading to an overall decrease in the I population and fewer yearly deaths. This case advocates the urgency to expedite users out of the I class into treatment to protect them from the high overdose death rate. This circumstance is the same for the variable death rate and the parameters m and b. In the short term, these parameters were significant, although they were not in the long term. This discovery could also be why ϵ ranked as somewhat significant for the year-end of 20 years and the variable death rate. This significance increases from the 10-year mark. Positively correlated, as one would predict, increasing this parameter increases the yearly deaths. ϵ is inversely proportional to the availability of specialty treatment facilities, and increasing this parameter will decrease the availability of an individual to get care.
3.2. All-illicit opioids analysis
Discussion of the PRCC values
There must be a monotonic relationship between the output values and model parameters when measuring sensitivity for the PRCC method. Therefore, we performed monotonicity checks for all initial conditions and parameter values.
For the yearly number of casual users who enter the IOUD class, a monotonic relationship for all variables and initial conditions was concluded from 2022 to 2040 for the constant and variable death rates.
For the yearly number of relapses from T counts variable, plots were non-monotonic for several years for some of the parameters and initial conditions. For the constant and variable death rates, the yearly number of relapses from T was not monotonic in parameter βE from 2024 to 2025; however, this parameter did not show up as significant during this time period on the PRCC graphs for the yearly number of relapses from T. For the constant and variable death rates, the yearly number of relapses from T was not monotonic in parameter ζ, from 2024 to 2025; however, this parameter did not show up as significant during this time period on the PRCC graphs for the yearly number of relapses from T. For the constant death rate, the yearly number of relapses from T was not monotonic in parameter β, from 2024 to 2025; however, this parameter did not show up as significant during this time period on the PRCC graphs for the yearly number of relapses from T. For the constant death rate, the yearly number of relapses from T was not monotonic in the initial condition TE(0) from 2024 to 2026; however, this parameter did not show up as significant on the PRCC graphs for the yearly number of relapses from T. For the variable death rate, the yearly number of relapses from T was not monotonic in the parameter ρE from 2024 to 2026; however, this parameter did not show up as significant on the PRCC graphs for the yearly number of relapses from T.
For the yearly number of relapses from R counts variable, plots were non-monotonic for several years for some of the parameters and initial conditions. For the constant death rate, the yearly number of relapses from R was not monotonic in the parameters κE, ψ1, and ψ3 from 2022 to 2023; however, these parameters did not show up as significant on the PRCC graphs for the yearly number of relapses from R. For the constant death rate, the yearly number of relapses from R was not monotonic in parameter ω from 2036 to 2037; however, this parameter did not show up as significant during this time period on the PRCC graph for the yearly number of relapses from R. For the variable death rate, the yearly number of relapses from R was not monotonic in parameters κE, ρE, ψ1, ψ2, and ψ3 from 2022 to 2024; however, these parameters did not show up as significant on the PRCC graphs for the yearly number of relapses from R. For the constant death rate, the yearly number of relapses from R was not monotonic in parameter ω in 2040. However, this parameter did not show up as significant during this time on the PRCC graph for the yearly number of relapses from R.
Finally, we checked the monotonicity results for the yearly opioid overdose deaths. For the constant death rate, the yearly number of opioid overdose deaths was not monotonic in parameter κE from 2024 to 2025; however, this parameter did not show up as significant on the 2030 PRCC graph and showed up as insignificant during this time period on the 2040 PRCC graph for the yearly number of opioid overdose deaths. For the constant death rate, the yearly number of opioid overdose deaths was not monotonic in the parameters ψ1, ψ2, and ψ3 from 2024 to 2025; however, these parameters did not show up as significant on the PRCC graphs for the yearly number of opioid overdose deaths. For the variable death rate, the yearly number of opioid overdose deaths was not monotonic in parameters κE, ρE, ψ1, ψ2, and ψ3 from 2024 to 2026; however, this parameter did not show up as significant on the PRCC graphs for the yearly number of opioid overdose deaths.
As the theory requires, we do not use results of significance for the parameters in the years where monotonicity fails. Similarly, in the ensuing discussion, we don't consider the variables for the parameters in the years when monotonicity fails.
The following discussion presents variables of interest to the healthcare industry and policymakers. The focus will be on the yearly number of the casual users who enter the IOUD class for the first time, the yearly number of individuals who relapse from the T class, the yearly number of individuals who relapse from the R class, and the yearly opioid overdose deaths due to all-illicit opioids. Although these variables are not of the original system of equations, we calculate them by keeping track of their cumulative yearly totals.
Four graphs for each case correspond to the sensitivities for the constant death rates (at their 2020 values) in 2030 and 2040 (δ=0.0343 and δE = 0.0078) versus the variable death rate in 2030 and 2040.
We will refer to the sensitivity results as being "highly significant" if it has a PRCC value of 0.85 or higher, "significant" if it has a PRCC value of 0.70–0.84, "somewhat significant" if it has a PRCC value of 0.55–0.69, "slightly significant" if it has a PRCC value of 0.45–0.54, "borderline significant" if it has a PRCC value of 0.40–0.44, and "not significant" if it has a PRCC value of under 0.40. The significance of the initial conditions will also not be discussed as reasoned in Cole and Wirkus (2022) [10]. Additionally, only parameters that may be changed due to external influence will be discussed.
Yearly new I from E:
The variable yearly new I from E gives the count of the number of casual users from the E class who entered the I (all-illicit opioids) class; see Figure 10 and Table 8. The comparisons of the PRCC values graphs are similar, and the discussion will be relevant for all four plots unless otherwise noted. The two parameters βE and ζ ranked highly significant. Since the parameter βE (transmission rate of moving to E from S through interaction with someone from E) was positively correlated, increasing this rate would increase the number of yearly new I from E counts. On the other hand, since the parameter ζ (rate of individuals in E returning to S) is negatively correlated, increasing this rate would decrease the number of yearly new I from E counts. Finally, the parameter β (transmission rate of moving to E from S through interaction with someone from I) ranked as somewhat significant to significant. Since it is positively correlated, increasing this parameter would increase the number of yearly new I from E counts. Therefore, decreasing the transmission rates, with more focus on βE, plus increasing the rate of individuals going back to the S class from E would be very beneficial to drive down the yearly new I from E counts.
Figure 10.
Illicit opioids: PRCC results over time for those who are entering I for the first time, with grayed region denoting a lack of significance. These results are summarized in the text and in Table 8. The left figures have a final time of 2030 whereas the right figures have a final time of 2040. The top figures keep δ and δE constant at their 2020 values whereas the bottom figures use the extrapolation functions for δ and δE.
Table 8.
All illicit opioids data: PRCC results for movement into I, relapse from T, relapse from R, and yearly deaths using the baseline parameters and initial conditions and using either the constant δ or the variable δ. The PRCC values are given at year end time of 2030 and year end time of 2040. Table values without an entry either are not significant or undefined (in the case of m and b for the constant death rate and δ and δE for the variable death rate). The corresponding graphs for this table are given in Figures 10–13.
The variable yearly relapse T gives the count of the individuals who relapsed from the T class back to the I class; see Figure 11 and Table 8. The comparisons of the PRCC values graphs are similar, and the discussion will be relevant for all four plots unless otherwise noted. The two parameters βE and ζ were highly significant. Since the parameter βE (transmission rate of moving to E from S through interaction with someone from E) is positively correlated, increasing this rate would increase the number of yearly relapse T counts, as expected. Since the parameter ζ (rate of individuals in E returning to S) is negatively correlated, an increase in this rate would decrease the number of yearly relapse T counts, as expected. Two parameters, ω (rate of individuals in I who enter R by either completing treatment in non-specialty facilities or "quitting cold turkey") and α1 (rate of individuals in R relapsing to I on their own accord) came up as significant. Since ω is negatively correlated, increasing this rate decreases the yearly relapse T counts. This decrease happens because fewer individuals would go to the T class. However, we disregard this parameter because we want individuals to transition out of I whether they go to R or T. Since α1 is positively correlated, a decrease in this rate would decrease the yearly relapse T counts, which would be agreeable. The parameters η1 (rate of individuals in I who enter specialty treatment on their own) and κ (rate of individuals leaving treatment and returning to I) ranked as somewhat significant to significant. Since η1 is positively correlated, decreasing this rate would reduce the number of yearly relapses from T counts because more individuals would be in the T class. Although we want to decrease the number of relapses, we still wish for individuals to go to treatment Therefore, we disregard this parameter. Since κ is positively correlated, decreasing this rate would reduce the number of yearly relapses from T counts, as expected and agreeable. The parameters η3 (rate of individuals in I who enter T through interaction with a susceptible), ρ (rate of individuals leaving specialty treatment and entering the recovered class), and χ (rate of individuals in E that transition to I) showed up as somewhat significant. Since η3 is positively correlated, increasing this rate would increase the yearly relapse T counts. Following the same reasoning as η1, we disregard this parameter. Since the parameter ρ is negatively correlated, an increase in this rate would decrease the number of yearly relapse T counts, as expected and agreeable. Since χ is positively correlated, lowering this rate would reduce the number of yearly relapse T counts, as expected and agreeable. First, it is recommended to focus on starting with, most importantly, decreasing the casual user transmission rate and increasing the rate of users returning to the S class from the E class. Then, it is beneficial to decrease the relapse rates from the R class followed by the T class, increase the treatment completion rate from the T class, and decrease the rate of those casual users entering the I class.
Figure 11.
Illicit opioids: PRCC results over time for the number of those individuals who relapsed from T and went back to I, with grayed region denoting a lack of significance. These results are summarized in the text and in Table 8. The left figures have a final time of 2030 whereas the right figures have a final time of 2040. The top figures keep δ and δE constant at their 2020 values whereas the bottom figures use the extrapolation functions for δ and δE.
The variable yearly relapse R gives the count of the individuals who relapsed from the R class back to the I class; see Figure 12 and Table 8. The comparisons of the PRCC values graphs are similar, and the discussion will be relevant for all four plots unless otherwise noted. The two parameters βE (transmission rate of moving to E from S through interaction with someone from E) and ζ (rate of individuals in E returning to S) came up as highly significant. Since the parameter βE is positively correlated, increasing this rate would increase the number of yearly relapse R counts. On the other hand, since the parameter ζ is negatively correlated, an increase in this rate would decrease the number of relapse R counts. The parameter α1 (rate of individuals in R relapsing to I on their own accord) came up as significant in the short term but then decreased to somewhat significant in the long run for both death rates. Since α1 is positively correlated, lowering this parameter would reduce the number of relapse R counts. Hence in the short term, it is recommended to focus on decreasing the casual user transmission rate, increasing the rate casual users go back to the susceptibles, and reducing the relapse rate of individuals from the R class on their own. Finally, in the long run, the focus should be more concentrated on the casual user transmission rate and the rate of the casual users back to S.
Figure 12.
Illicit opioids: PRCC results over time for the number of those individuals who relapsed from R and went back to I, with grayed region denoting a lack of significance. These results are summarized in the text and in Table 8. The left figures have a final time of 2030 whereas the right figures have a final time of 2040. The top figures keep δ and δE constant at their 2020 values whereas the bottom figures use the extrapolation functions for δ and δE.
The variable yearly death gives the count of the number of opioid overdose deaths from the E class and the I class; see Figure 13 and Table 8. Since the comparisons of the PRCC values graphs are similar, the discussion will be relevant for all four plots unless otherwise noted. The two parameters βE (transmission rate of moving to E from S through interaction with someone from E) and ζ (rate of individuals in E returning to S) came up as highly significant. Since the parameter βE is positively correlated, a decrease in this rate would decrease the number of yearly death counts. Since the parameter ζ is negatively correlated, an increase in this rate would reduce the number of yearly death counts. Two parameters, ω (rate of individuals in I who enter R by either completing treatment in non-specialty facilities or "quitting cold turkey") and α1 (rate of individuals in R relapsing to I on their own accord) came up as significant. Since ω is negatively correlated, increasing this rate will decrease the yearly death count. Since α1 is positively correlated, reducing this rate would lower the yearly death count. Therefore, we recommend focusing on starting with, most importantly, decreasing the casual user transmission rate and increasing the rate casual users go back to the susceptible class. Then, increasing the rate of individuals going to the recovered class from I and decreasing the relapse rate of the R class on one's own.
Figure 13.
Illicit opioids: PRCC results over time for the number of yearly deaths, with grayed region denoting a lack of significance. These results are summarized in the text and in Table 8. The left figures have a final time of 2030 whereas the right figures have a final time of 2040. The top figures keep δ and δE constant at their 2020 values whereas the bottom figures use the extrapolation functions for δ and δE.
The sensitivity results for the overdose death rate parameters are similar to the heroin-only dataset. Although in the beginning, the parameters δ and b display high significance as time goes on, this significance drops. A high death rate leading to a higher number of overdose deaths led to fewer users in the I class over time. As a result, there are fewer individuals in I to interact with susceptibles. Therefore, this parameter is less sensitive in the long run because the number of individuals being influenced decreases, leading to an overall reduction in the I population and fewer yearly deaths. This case advocates the urgency to expedite users out of the I class into treatment to be protected from the high overdose death rate.
4.
Summary and discussion
We presented a model for the heroin epidemic dynamics and illicit opioid use epidemic dynamics. We do not intend to assert that these results apply to the more general opioid epidemic, which was initially driven by legitimate prescriptions. In Cole and Wirkus (2022) [10], we illustrate one such model called the IOUD model, which features four classes: susceptibles, IOUD class, specialty treatment facilities, and recovered and use datasets from heroin use. Here we additionally extend this to include illicit opioid use (IOUD). There are multiple ways an individual could cycle among the classes. For example, one could cycle from IOUD to treatment to recovery and then back to the IOUD class. However, once an individual had IOUD, they could no longer cycle back to the susceptibles. This model also featured a saturation treatment function which limits the flow into the specialty treatment facilities from the IOUD class due to the limited availability of care. We extended the IOUD model in Cole and Wirkus (2022) [10] to include a casual user class and a corresponding specialty treatment facilities class. We referred to this new version as the IOUD model with a casual user class.
We found realistic parameter values through the literature and parameter estimation and matched them to the CDC and SAMHSA data. The IOUD model with a casual user class displayed linearly increasing overdose death rates. This increase started in 2011 for the HUD overdose death rates, δ and δE using the heroin-only dataset. However, this increase started in 2013 using the all-illicit opioids dataset. On the basis that the IOUD model with a casual user class approaches constant population N∗=(Λ−δI∗−δEE∗)/μ, we scaled the SAMHSA data to a population of 200,000 (ignoring the overdose death rate). Scaling in such a way permitted us to enhance our understanding of the heroin/illicit opioids epidemic dynamics.
With the parameter estimates, we determined that extrapolated δ-values resulted in bistability. In this region, although the effective reproductive number, Reff, is less than one, we found both the DFE and EE stable. For the extended IOUD model, with realistic parameter values for heroin data and the δ and δE values extrapolated to future values; for example their 2026 values (δ≈0.0501,δE≈0.0205), we found both the DFE and an EE were stable; and for sufficiently large values of δ and δE (the late-2045 values of 0.1025 and 0.042, respectively), we found that only the DFE was stable. This discovery of backward bifurcation emphasizes a complication for eliminating HUD. For the IOUD model with the heroin-only dataset, there is a minimum threshold ϵ value below which we did not have bistability. In other words, increasing accessibility to specialty treatment facilities is vital to ending this epidemic. In addition, including the casual user class also appears to increase the region of bistability.
We discovered an alarming result concerning the overdose death rate for the PRCC results for yearly death counts in the IOUD model with the casual user class. The following applies to both heroin and all-illicit opioids datasets. The significance of the overdose death rate was initially high, as expected. However, its relevance decreased as time moved on, indicating the higher death rate reduced the population in the IOUD class to a degree where fewer individuals interacted with the susceptibles. This decreased interaction led to fewer individuals flowing into the IOUD class. Although we want fewer individuals individuals departing to go to the IOUD class, we do not wish for the reason to be higher overdose deaths. Therefore, there is an urgency to expedite users out of the IOUD class into treatment. This PRCC result concurs with our startling revelation discovered for our original HUD model. For the sake of considering potential scenarios, suppose the growth rate of overdose death rates continues while the other parameters remain at their current estimated values. In that case, the DFE will be the only stable, biologically relevant equilibrium predicted to happen by 2038 in the original HUD model and by 2046 for the HUD model ( = IOUD model with heroin dataset) with casual users. Again, this emphasizes the importance of driving down the future outlook of this epidemic ending with overdose deaths from heroin use. Strategies that could reduce this rate or keep it constant include increased police and law intervention, updated enforcement policies, and unprecedented procedures targeted at enforcement of laws.
Although one would intuitively predict many of our sensitivity analysis results, some interesting results emerged. A surprising result in the sensitivity analysis for the all-illicit opioids dataset was the importance of the casual user transmission rate over-ranking the IOUD transmission rate by far. Thus, it is essential not to overlook the casual users contributing to this epidemic.
Although the last parameter discussed showed significance for some of the variables in the extended model with both datasets, the parameter quantifying the rate of relapse from recovery on their own accord consistently had significance for most of the variables. Furthermore, this case was especially apparent in the opioid dataset and exemplified when comparing the heroin-only and all-illicit opioids dataset parameter values. We note that the parameter for individuals moving to the recovered class through non-specialty treatment facility means or quitting on their own is much higher for the all-illicit opioid epidemic than the heroin epidemic. We hypothesize that relapse may be more problematic for those individuals who go directly to the recovered class instead of going through specialty treatment facilities. Focus on recovered people that are relapsing came there by omega than not through specialty treatment route. Efforts to increase those going into specialty treatment and decrease the relapse rate for the individuals in recovery are exceptionally beneficial for the all-illicit opioid epidemic.
Comparing parameters between the datasets for the IOUD model with a casual user, we discover intriguing results. We note that the rate quantifying how many individuals go back to being susceptible from casual use is much higher for the heroin epidemic than the all-illicit opioids epidemic. Individuals remain longer in the casual user class of the all-illicit opioid epidemic. This development concurs with the PRCC results on the importance of not considering how influential the casual users are in driving the opioid epidemic. We also note that the going to treatment rates were significantly smaller for those in the opioid epidemic, whether casual users or the IOUD class. It signifies that illicit opioid pain medication users are more unlikely to seek treatment. It would be beneficial to raise awareness of this fact.
Future work extends the IOUD model with a casual user class by adding a general treatment class to distinguish between specialty treatment facilities and non-specialty treatment facilities. Furthermore, adding a prescription class to the IOUD model with a casual user class to incorporate those using opioid prescriptions by a physician's order is also another consideration forthcoming. As mentioned earlier, an age-structured model as well as allowing for parameters to change with time could be additional extensions [12,13]. Finally, additional data collection could be undertaken (e.g., by SAMHSA) that would give more frequent data points for what is presented in Tables 4–6. Besides likely requiring additional funding, this would necessitate further collaboration with modelers with the hope that the results would give additional insight for best ways to address this epidemic.
Use of AI tools declaration
The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully thank the three reviewers for their important insights in the revisions of this manuscript.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare there is no conflict of interest.
References
[1]
Ž. Bajzer, T. Carr, K. Josić, S.J Russell and D. Dingli, Modeling of cancer virotherapy with recombinant measles viruses, J. Theor. Biol. 252 (2008), 109–122.
[2]
M. Biesecker, J.H. Kimn, H. Lu, D. Dingli and Ž. Bajzer, Optimization of virotherapy for cancer, Bulletin Math. Biol., 72 (2010), 469–489.
[3]
B.W. Bridle, K.B. Stephenson, J.E. Boudreau, S. Koshy, N. Kazdhan, E. Pullenayegum, J. Brunellière, J.L. Bramson, B.D. Lichty and Y. Wan, Potentiating cancer immunotherapy using an oncolytic virus, Mol. Ther., 18 (2010), 1430–1439.
[4]
R.M. Diaz, F. Galivo, T. Kottke, P.Wongthida, J. Qiao, J. Thompson, M. Valdes, G. Barber and R.G Vile, Oncolytic immunovirotherapy for melanoma using vesicular stomatitis virus, Cancer Res., 67 (2007), 2840–2848.
[5]
R. Eftimie, J. Dushoff, B.M. Bridle, J.L. Bramson and D.J.D. Earn, Multi-stability and multiinstability phenomena in a mathematical model of tumor-immune-virus interactions, Bulletin Math. Biol., 73 (2011), 2932–2961.
[6]
R. Eftimie, C.K. Macnamara, J. Dushoff, J.L. Bramson and D.J.D. Earn, Bifurcations and chaotic dynamics in a tumour-immune-virus system, Math. Modell. Nat. Pheno., 11 (2016), 65–85.
[7]
M.W. Hirsch, Systems of differential equations that are competitive or cooperative II: Convergence almost everywhere, SIAM J. Math. Analysis, 16 (1985), 423–439.
[8]
B.Y. Hwang and D.V. Schaffer, Engineering a serum-resistant and thermostable vesicular stomatitis virus G glycoprotein for pseudotyping retroviral and lentiviral vectors, Gene Ther., 20 (2013), 807– 815.
[9]
A.P. Krishchenko, Estimation of domains with cycles, Computer Math. Appl., 34 (1997), 325–332.
[10]
A.P. Krishchenko, Localization of invariant compact sets of dynamical systems, Differ. Equations, 41 (2005), 1669–1676.
[11]
A.P. Krishchenko and K.E. Starkov, Localization of compact invariant sets of the Lorenz system, Phys. Lett. A, 353 (2006), 383–388.
[12]
A.P. Krishchenko and K.E. Starkov, On the global dynamics of a chronic myelogenous leukemia model, Commun. Nonlin. Sci. Numer. Simul., 33 (2016), 174–183.
[13]
A.P. Krishchenko and K.E. Starkov, The four-dimensional Kirschner-Panetta type cancer model: how to obtain tumor eradication? Math. Biosci. Eng., 15 (2018), 1243–1254.
[14]
S. Varghese and S.D. Rabkin, Oncolytic herpes simplex virus vectors for cancer virotherapy, Cancer Gene Ther., 9 (2002), 967–978.
[15]
M.Y. Li and S.J. Muldowney, On R.A. Smith's autonomous convergence theorem, Rocky Mountain J. Math., 25 (1995), 365–379.
[16]
R.A. Smith, Some applications of Hausdorff dimension inequalities for ordinary differential equations, Proceed. Royal Soc. Edinburgh Sec. A: Math., 104 (1986), 235–259.
[17]
K.E. Starkov, On dynamic tumor eradication conditions under combined chemical/anti-angiogenic therapies, Phys. Lett. A, 382 (2018), 387–393.
[18]
K.E. Starkov and S. Bunimovich-Mendrazitsky, Dynamical properties and tumor clearance conditions for a nine-dimensional model of bladder cancer immunotherapy, Math. Biosci. Eng., 13 (2016), 1059–1075.
[19]
K.E. Starkov and L. Jimenez Beristain, Dynamic analysis of the melanoma model: from cancer persistence to its eradication, Internat. J. Bifur. Chaos Appl. Sci. Engrg., 27 (2017), 1750151-1– 1750151-11.
[20]
K.E. Starkov and A.P. Krishchenko, Ultimate dynamics of the Kirschner-Panetta model: Tumor eradication and related problems, Phys. Lett. A, 381 (2017), 3409–3016.
[21]
H.R. Thieme, Asymptotically autonomous differential equations in the plane, Rocky Mountain J. Math., 34 (1994), 351–380.
Konstantin E. Starkov, Giovana Andres Garfias. Dynamics of the tumor-immune-virus interactions: Convergence conditions to tumor-only or tumor-free equilibrium points[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(1): 421-437. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019020
Konstantin E. Starkov, Giovana Andres Garfias. Dynamics of the tumor-immune-virus interactions: Convergence conditions to tumor-only or tumor-free equilibrium points[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(1): 421-437. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019020
Table 4.
Data for U.S., 2002–2020. The number of overdose deaths for 2002–2020 are from the CDC [22]. U.S. population comes from [23]. Use disorder and specialty treatment data come from SAMHSA's National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) [19,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33]. Data with an asterisk ∗ = Specialty treatment data × 0.6874 because specialty treatment from I only asked in 2014–2017 SAMHSA surveys. The factor 0.6874 is the average of the ratio of specialty treatment from I to specialty treatment in the 4 years when data is available.
Table 5.
Data for U.S., 2003–2019: overdose deaths, use disorder, and use in past year. Numbers in thousands for all data values. The number of overdose deaths for 2003–2020 are from the CDC [22]. Pain medication use disorder, heroin use disorder, opioid use disorder, and use in past year data come from SAMHSA's NSDUH [19,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33]. Data with an asterisk (*) are missing data and are calculated from other columns as described in the text. See the text for discussions of these categories.
Table 6.
Data for U.S., 2003–2019: initiation and specialty treatment. Numbers in thousands for all data values. Pain medication initiation, heroin initiation, and specialty treatment data come from SAMHSA's NSDUH [19,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33]. Data with an asterisk (*) are missing data and are calculated from other columns as described in the text. See the text for discussions of these categories.
Table 7.
Heroin Only Data: PRCC results for movement into I, relapse from T, relapse from R, and yearly deaths using the baseline parameters and initial conditions and using either the constant δ or the variable δ. The PRCC values are given at year end time of 2030 and year end time of 2040. Table values without an entry are not significant or undefined (in the case of m and b for the constant death rate and δ and δE for the variable death rate). The corresponding graphs for this Table are given in Figures 5–8.
Table 8.
All illicit opioids data: PRCC results for movement into I, relapse from T, relapse from R, and yearly deaths using the baseline parameters and initial conditions and using either the constant δ or the variable δ. The PRCC values are given at year end time of 2030 and year end time of 2040. Table values without an entry either are not significant or undefined (in the case of m and b for the constant death rate and δ and δE for the variable death rate). The corresponding graphs for this table are given in Figures 10–13.