Retrospective study of XXXX protective action in different allergopathies.

@entity1 @entity565 @entity2490 @entity56 @entity6850
There is no doubt that @entity6850 has continued to be an effective prophylactic anti- @entity56 drug throughout the years since its discovery. Therefore, we decided to perform a retrospective study of this pharmacologic agent to evaluate its efficacy, duration of treatment, as well as its tolerance in different @entity56 processes. A total of 1,000 histories of @entity56 @entity1 were reviewed and 450 were selected by chance from 1981 through 1984. The @entity1 were divided as to their diagnostic etiology, whether affected by pollen or house dust. @entity6850 efficacy was graded from 0-3 (bad, regular, good and excellent), according to its clinical evaluation. In general, @entity1 responded better to @entity6850 treatment than adults (reduction in other symptomatic drug intake), although statistical significance was found in both populations. However, drug efficacy was better in pollen than house dust. Induced @entity565 and @entity2490 in the @entity1 population. On the other hand, no statistical difference was found between sensitization to house dust or pollens in the adult population. To be truly effective, @entity6850 should be taken for at least 3 months or more. We only found 12 (2.66%) @entity1 who presented somnolence: the rest tolerated the drug well, with no secondary side effects.
