REGULATORY AND METHODOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF STUDYING ALLERGENIC PROPERTIES OF NEW MEDICINES AT THE PRECLINICAL STAGE

The assessment of allergic risk at the preclinical stage of drug development has been a debatable issue due to the integration of national requirements for medicines authorisation with those of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). The article summarises mechanisms and factors involved in the development of drug hypersensitivity, as well as the main national and foreign regulatory requirements. It also cites the results of allergic risk assessment studies involving standard guinea pig tests, such as systemic anaphylactic reactions and active cutaneous anaphylaxis, for a number of medicines with the molecular weight of the active substance of more than 1000 Da and less than 1000 Da. Data analysis confirms that the number of positive reactions for high molecular weight compounds (>1000 Da) is significantly higher than the number of positive reactions for low molecular weight compounds (<1000 Da). There were some false-positive results detected. The results of foreign studies confirm the lack of correlation between the experimental data obtained in similar tests in guinea pigs and the clinical data. Thus, standard tests in guinea pigs cannot adequately predict the risk of immediate hypersensitivity reactions to new medicines in clinical practice. Negative or positive results should not be regarded as confirmation of potential absence or presence of anaphylactic reactions in clinical practice.

1. Guidance on preclinical evaluation of medicines. Part 1. Moscow: Grif i K; 2012 (In Russ.)

2. Guidance on evaluation of medicines. V. I. Moscow: Grif i K; 2013 (In Russ.)

3. ICH M3(R2) Guidance on Nonclinical Safety Studies for the Conduct of Human Clinical Trials and Marketing Authorization for Pharmaceuticals M3(R2); 2009.

4. State Standard R 56701-2015. Medicinal products for medical use. Guidelines for the planning of preclinical safety studies for the purpose of subsequent clinical trials and registration of drugs. Moscow: Standartinform; 2016 (In Russ.)

5. Sepiashvili RI, Slavyanskaya TA. WAO White book of Allergy 2011-2012: Resume. Moscow: Meditsina-Zdorovie; 2011 (In Russ.)

6. Eliseeva TI, Balabolkin II. Allergic reactions to medicines: modern views (review). Modern Technologies in Medicine 2016; 8(1): 159-72 (In Russ.)

7. Kolodijchuk EV, Grudina EV, Malashenkova TE. Drug Allergy. The Medical Bulletin of the North Caucasus 2007; (2): 70-5 (In Russ.)

8. Haitov RM, Ilyina NI. Allergology and Immunology: National Guideline. Moscow: GEOTAR-Media; 2009 (In Russ.)

9. Naisbitt DJ, Gordon SF, Pirmohamed M, Park BK. Immunological Principles of Adverse Drug Reactions: the Initiation and Propagation of Immune Responses Elicited by Drug Treatment. Drug Saf 2000; 23(6): 483-507.

10. Gell PGH, Coombs RRA. Clinical Aspects of Immunology. Oxford- Edinburg; 1975.

11. Schnyder B, Brockow K. Pathogenesis of Drug Allergy - Current Concepts and Recent Insights. Clin Exp Allergy 2015; 45(9): 1376-83.

12. Landsteiner K, Jacobs J. Studies on the Sensitization of Animals with Simple Chemical Compounds. J Exp Med 1935; 61(5): 643-56.

13. Bugelski PJ. Genetic Aspects of Immune-Mediated Adverse Drug Effects. Nature 2005; (4): 59-69.

14. Park BK, Coleman JW, Kitteringham NR. Drug Disposition and Drug Hypersensitivity. Biochem Pharmacol. 1987; 36(5): 581-90.

15. Ratajczak HV. Drug-Induced Hypersensitivity. Toxicol Rev. 2004; 23(4): 265-80.

16. Novikov PD, Novikov DK. Mechanisms of allergy to drugs-haptens. Immunopathology, Allergology, Infectology 2000; (4): 48-64 (In Russ.)

17. Pichler WJ. Delayed Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions. Ann Intern Med. 2003; 139(8): 683-93.

18. ICH S8 Immunotoxicity Studies for Human Pharmaceuticals. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Food and Drug Administration. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (СBER); 2006.

19. Immunotoxicology Evaluation of Investigational New Drugs. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Food and Drug Administration. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER); 2002.

20. Interstate Standard GOST 32375-2013. Test methods for the effects of chemical products on the human body. Tests for the evaluation of skin sensitization. Moscow: Standartinform; 2014 (In Russ.)

21. Atsapkina AА, Kryshen KL, Kastornova AE, Makarova MN, Makarov VG. Immunological status of laboratory animals in the modeling of immediate-type hypersensitivity. International Veterinary Journal 2014; (1): 91-9 (In Russ.)

22. Weigle WO, Cochrane CG, Dixon FJ. Anaphylactogenic Properties of Soluble Antigen-Antibody Complexes in the Guinea Pig and Rabbit. J Immunol. 1960; 85: 469-77.

23. Ovchinnikova EA, Ovchinnikova LK. Safety profile of vancomycin. Qualitative Clinical Practice 2004; (2): 36-48 (In Russ.)

24. Jenneck C, Juergens U, Buecheler M, Novak N. Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Aspirin Intolerance. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2007; 99(1): 13-21.

25. Chazal I, Verdier F, Virat M, Descotes J. Prediction of Drug-Induced Immediate Hypersensitivity in Guinea Pigs. Toxicol In Vitro 1994; 8(5): 1045-7.

26. Choquet-Kastylevsky G, Descotes J. Value of Animal Models for Predicting Hypersensitivity Reactions to Medicinal Products. Toxicology 1998; 129(1): 27-35.

27. Weaver JL, Staten D, Swann J, Armstrong G, Bates M, Hastings KL. Detection of Systemic Hypersensitivity to Drugs Using Standard Guinea Pig Assays. Toxicology 2003; 193(3): 203-17.