American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

June  2018, 15(3): 667-691. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2018030

Feedback control of an HBV model based on ensemble kalman filter and differential evolution

 1 Department of Computational Science and Engineering, Yonsei University, 50 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722, Republic of Korea 2 Department of Mathematics, Inha University, 100 Inharo, Nam-gu, Incheon 22212, Republic of Korea 3 Department of Mathematics, and Department of Computational Science and Engineering, Yonsei University, 50 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722, Republic of Korea

* Corresponding author: Hee-Dae Kwon

Received  March 13, 2017 Revised  September 14, 2017 Published  December 2017

In this paper, we derive efficient drug treatment strategies for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection by formulating a feedback control problem. We introduce and analyze a dynamic mathematical model that describes the HBV infection during antiviral therapy. We determine the reproduction number and then conduct a qualitative analysis of the model using the number. A control problem is considered to minimize the viral load with consideration for the treatment costs. In order to reflect the status of patients at both the initial time and the follow-up visits, we consider the feedback control problem based on the ensemble Kalman filter (EnKF) and differential evolution (DE). EnKF is employed to estimate full information of the state from incomplete observation data. We derive a piecewise constant drug schedule by applying DE algorithm. Numerical simulations are performed using various weights in the objective functional to suggest optimal treatment strategies in different situations.

Citation: Junyoung Jang, Kihoon Jang, Hee-Dae Kwon, Jeehyun Lee. Feedback control of an HBV model based on ensemble kalman filter and differential evolution. Mathematical Biosciences & Engineering, 2018, 15 (3) : 667-691. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2018030
References:

show all references

References:
The bifurcation diagram of the model system
Feedback control algorithm
Mutation step to create a mutant vector $v_i$
Crossover step to yield one of the vectors $v_i$, $u'_i$, $u''_i$ and $x_i$ as a new candidate
Feedback controls $\mu_1$, $\mu_2$ and the corresponding states $T, V, I, E$ with $w_2=10^{-5}$, $w_3=10^{-5}$.
Feedback controls $\mu_1$, $\mu_2$ and the corresponding states $T, V, I, E$ with $w_2=10^{-3}$, $w_3=10^{-3}$.
Feedback controls $\mu_1$, $\mu_2$ and the corresponding states $T, V, I, E$ with $w_2=10^{-1}$, $w_3=10^{-1}$.
Feedback controls $\mu_1$, $\mu_2$ and the corresponding states $T, V, I, E$ with $w_2=10^{-3}$, $w_3=10^{-2}$.
The difference between the total amount of $\mu_2$ and $\mu_1$ using same treatment efficacy ($\eta = \epsilon = 0.9$).
The difference between the total amount of $\mu_2$ and $\mu_1$ using various combinations of treatment efficacy assuming the total efficacy of 99%.
Piecewise constant controls with monthly, biweekly, and weekly measurement and piecewise continuous controls with monthly measurement using $w_2=10^{-5}$, $w_3=10^{-5}$.
Piecewise constant controls with monthly, biweekly, and weekly measurement and piecewise continuous controls with monthly measurement using $w_2=10^{-3}$, $w_3=10^{-3}$.
Piecewise constant controls with monthly, biweekly, and weekly measurement and piecewise continuous controls with monthly measurement using $w_2=10^{-1}$, $w_3=10^{-1}$.
Parameters used in the model (1). They are principally extracted from Kim et al. [13].
 Description value units $S$ production rate of target cells $5\times10^5$ $\frac{cells}{mL \cdot day}$ $d_T$ death rate of target cells 0.003 $\frac{1}{day}$ $\eta$ treatment efficacy of inhibiting de novo infection $\in [0, 1]$ $\cdot$ $b$ de novo infection rate of target cells $4\times10^{-10}$ $\frac{mL}{virions \cdot day}$ $f$ calibration coefficient of $\alpha$ for target cells 0.1 $\cdot$ $m$ mitotic production rate of infected cells 0.003 $\frac{1}{day}$ $d_I$ death rate of infected cells 0.043 $\frac{1}{day}$ $\alpha$ immune effector-induced clearance rate of infected cells $7\times10^{-4}$ $\frac{mL}{cells \cdot day}$ $\epsilon$ treatment efficacy of inhibiting viral production $\in [0, 1]$ $\cdot$ $p$ viral production rate by infected cells 6.24 $\frac{virions}{cells \cdot day}$ $c$ clearance rate of free virions 0.7 $\frac{1}{day}$ $S_E$ production rate of immune effectors 9.33 $\frac{cells}{mL \cdot day}$ $B_E$ maximum birth rate for immune effectors 0.5 $\frac{1}{day}$ $K_E$ Michaelis-Menten type coefficient for immune effectors $4.07\times10^5$ $\frac{cells}{mL}$ $D_E$ death rate of immune effectors 0.52 $\frac{1}{day}$
 Description value units $S$ production rate of target cells $5\times10^5$ $\frac{cells}{mL \cdot day}$ $d_T$ death rate of target cells 0.003 $\frac{1}{day}$ $\eta$ treatment efficacy of inhibiting de novo infection $\in [0, 1]$ $\cdot$ $b$ de novo infection rate of target cells $4\times10^{-10}$ $\frac{mL}{virions \cdot day}$ $f$ calibration coefficient of $\alpha$ for target cells 0.1 $\cdot$ $m$ mitotic production rate of infected cells 0.003 $\frac{1}{day}$ $d_I$ death rate of infected cells 0.043 $\frac{1}{day}$ $\alpha$ immune effector-induced clearance rate of infected cells $7\times10^{-4}$ $\frac{mL}{cells \cdot day}$ $\epsilon$ treatment efficacy of inhibiting viral production $\in [0, 1]$ $\cdot$ $p$ viral production rate by infected cells 6.24 $\frac{virions}{cells \cdot day}$ $c$ clearance rate of free virions 0.7 $\frac{1}{day}$ $S_E$ production rate of immune effectors 9.33 $\frac{cells}{mL \cdot day}$ $B_E$ maximum birth rate for immune effectors 0.5 $\frac{1}{day}$ $K_E$ Michaelis-Menten type coefficient for immune effectors $4.07\times10^5$ $\frac{cells}{mL}$ $D_E$ death rate of immune effectors 0.52 $\frac{1}{day}$
 [1] Hong Niu, Zhijiang Feng, Qijin Xiao, Yajun Zhang. A PID control method based on optimal control strategy. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2021, 11 (1) : 117-126. doi: 10.3934/naco.2020019 [2] Håkon Hoel, Gaukhar Shaimerdenova, Raúl Tempone. Multilevel Ensemble Kalman Filtering based on a sample average of independent EnKF estimators. Foundations of Data Science, 2020  doi: 10.3934/fods.2020017 [3] Zhiyan Ding, Qin Li, Jianfeng Lu. Ensemble Kalman Inversion for nonlinear problems: Weights, consistency, and variance bounds. Foundations of Data Science, 2020  doi: 10.3934/fods.2020018 [4] Youming Guo, Tingting Li. Optimal control strategies for an online game addiction model with low and high risk exposure. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020347 [5] Bernard Bonnard, Jérémy Rouot. Geometric optimal techniques to control the muscular force response to functional electrical stimulation using a non-isometric force-fatigue model. Journal of Geometric Mechanics, 2020  doi: 10.3934/jgm.2020032 [6] Hui Lv, Xing'an Wang. Dissipative control for uncertain singular markovian jump systems via hybrid impulsive control. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2021, 11 (1) : 127-142. doi: 10.3934/naco.2020020 [7] Lars Grüne, Matthias A. Müller, Christopher M. Kellett, Steven R. Weller. Strict dissipativity for discrete time discounted optimal control problems. Mathematical Control & Related Fields, 2020  doi: 10.3934/mcrf.2020046 [8] Awais Younus, Zoubia Dastgeer, Nudrat Ishaq, Abdul Ghaffar, Kottakkaran Sooppy Nisar, Devendra Kumar. On the observability of conformable linear time-invariant control systems. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020444 [9] Siyang Cai, Yongmei Cai, Xuerong Mao. A stochastic differential equation SIS epidemic model with regime switching. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020317 [10] M. S. Lee, H. G. Harno, B. S. Goh, K. H. Lim. On the bang-bang control approach via a component-wise line search strategy for unconstrained optimization. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2021, 11 (1) : 45-61. doi: 10.3934/naco.2020014 [11] Xuefeng Zhang, Yingbo Zhang. Fault-tolerant control against actuator failures for uncertain singular fractional order systems. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2021, 11 (1) : 1-12. doi: 10.3934/naco.2020011 [12] Zuliang Lu, Fei Huang, Xiankui Wu, Lin Li, Shang Liu. Convergence and quasi-optimality of $L^2-$norms based an adaptive finite element method for nonlinear optimal control problems. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28 (4) : 1459-1486. doi: 10.3934/era.2020077 [13] Ilyasse Lamrani, Imad El Harraki, Ali Boutoulout, Fatima-Zahrae El Alaoui. Feedback stabilization of bilinear coupled hyperbolic systems. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020434 [14] Pengyu Chen. Non-autonomous stochastic evolution equations with nonlinear noise and nonlocal conditions governed by noncompact evolution families. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcds.2020383 [15] Sumit Arora, Manil T. Mohan, Jaydev Dabas. Approximate controllability of a Sobolev type impulsive functional evolution system in Banach spaces. Mathematical Control & Related Fields, 2020  doi: 10.3934/mcrf.2020049 [16] Lorenzo Zambotti. A brief and personal history of stochastic partial differential equations. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2021, 41 (1) : 471-487. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2020264 [17] Fabio Camilli, Giulia Cavagnari, Raul De Maio, Benedetto Piccoli. Superposition principle and schemes for measure differential equations. Kinetic & Related Models, , () : -. doi: 10.3934/krm.2020050 [18] Anna Canale, Francesco Pappalardo, Ciro Tarantino. Weighted multipolar Hardy inequalities and evolution problems with Kolmogorov operators perturbed by singular potentials. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, , () : -. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2020274 [19] Yueyang Zheng, Jingtao Shi. A stackelberg game of backward stochastic differential equations with partial information. Mathematical Control & Related Fields, 2020  doi: 10.3934/mcrf.2020047 [20] Thabet Abdeljawad, Mohammad Esmael Samei. Applying quantum calculus for the existence of solution of $q$-integro-differential equations with three criteria. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020440

2018 Impact Factor: 1.313