Abstract. In this paper, we examine observational constraints on the power law cosmology; essentially dependent on two parameters H 0 (Hubble constant) and q (deceleration parameter). We investigate the constraints on these parameters using the latest 28 points of H(z) data and 580 points of Union2.1 compilation data and, compare the results with the results of ΛCDM. We also forecast constraints using a simulated data set for the future JDEM, supernovae survey. Our studies give better insight into power law cosmology than the earlier done analysis by Kumar [arXiv:1109.6924] indicating it tuning well with Union2.1 compilation data but not with H(z) data. However, the constraints obtained on < H 0 > and < q > i.e. H 0 average and q average using the simulated data set for the future JDEM, supernovae survey are found to be inconsistent with the values obtained from the H(z) and Union2.1 compilation data. We also perform the statefinder analysis and find that the power-law cosmological models approach the standard ΛCDM model as q → −1. Finally, we observe that although the power law cosmology explains several prominent features of evolution of the Universe, it fails in details.

In a randomised double‐blind group comparison study of 40 patients with endogenous depression zimelidine appeared to be as effective an antidepressant as amitriptyline at 4 and 6 weeks using the Hamilton Rating Scale (HRS) and the Montgomery and Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). At 2 weeks there was a significantly better response (P < 0.05) on zimelidine compared to amitriptyline on the clinician's global scale and 4 out of 10 items on the MADRS suggesting an early onset of action. A significantly better response to zimelidine was seen on the item somatic anxiety (HRS) while the effect on sleep and appetite was better in the amitriptyline group. There were significantly more side effects, raw and corrected, in the amitriptyline‐treated group. High steady state plasma concentrations of norzimelidine (>800 nmol/l) which were significantly correlated with age (r = 0.8) were associated with a significantly poorer response suggesting that a lower dose than 200 mg in older patients may be appropriate.

In a double-blind group comparison study of 39 patients with primary depressive illness zimelidine in a dose of 200 mg at night demonstrated the same order of antidepressant efficacy as maprotiline in a dose of 150 mg at night after either two or four weeks treatment measured by the amelioration or final score on the Hamilton Rating Scale (HRS) and on the Montgomery & Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).Both zimelidine and maprotiline demonstrated significant antidepressant activity at 2 weeks compared with 2 weeks prior treatment with placebo measured by amelioration on HRS (paired t 4.1 PCO.001, t 2.7 PCO.02) or MADRS (paired t 3.5 PC0.005, t 5.1 PCO.001).An item analysis of the MADRS showed significantly better sleep and appetite in the maprotiline-treated group compared with the zimelidinetreated group which is in accord with the pharmacology of the two compounds.

No abstract