Direct electric curing (EC) is a new green curing method for cement-based materials that improves the early mechanical properties via the uniform high temperature produced by Joule heating. To understand the effects of EC and steam curing (SC) on the mechanical properties and microstructure of cement-based materials, the mortar was cured at different temperature-controlled curing regimes (40°C, 60°C and 80°C). Meanwhile, mechanical properties, hydrate phase and pore structure of specimens were investigated. The energy consumption of two curing methods was compared and analyzed. The results show that the EC specimens have better and more stable growth of mechanical strength. The pore structure of EC specimen is also better than that of SC specimen at different maintenance ages. However, the hydration degree and products of samples cured by EC are similar to that SC samples. The energy consumption of EC is lower than SC. This study provides an important technical support for the EC in the production of energy-saving and high early-strength concrete precast components.

Background: The phase III KEYNOTE-604 study confirmed the benefit of pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer(ES-SCLC). Intergrated the clinical benefits of pembrolizumab and its high cost into account, this study aim to assess the cost-effectiveness of adding pembrolizumab to standard first-line etoposide-platinum (EP) for patients with ES-SCLC from the the US payer perspective. Methods: A Markov model was developed to compared the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of pembrolizumab plus EP and placebo plus EP over a 10-year time horizon. Clinical efficacy, treatment utilization and safety data were pooled from the KEYNOTE-604 trial. Utilities were obtained from published resources. Costs were mainly collected from Medicare in 2020. Sensitivity analyses were performed to examined the robustness of our model. Results: Adding pembrolizumab to standard first-line EP, resulted in better effectiveness than the use of EP alone for ES-SCLC by 0.22 QALYs. Pembrolizumab plus EP was dominated economically by placebo plus EP, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio(ICER) of $334,373/ QALY. Deterministic sensitivity analyses indicated that the uncertainty in model parameters exerts no substantial effect on our results. Probability sensitivity analysis indicated that probabilities for pembrolizumab plus EP being cost-effective within a wide rang of willingness to pay were modest. Conclusion: From the US payer perspective, the first-line treatment for ES-SCLC with pembrolizumab plus EP was not cost-effective compare with placebo plus EP. Although pembrolizumab combination chemotherapy was beneficial to the survival of ES-SCLC, price reduction may be the necessary measure to improve its cost-effectiveness.