Comprehensive review evaluates methods for quantifying dipyridamole in various matrices, suggesting innovations for clinical use.
Dipyridamole (DPD) is a crucial antiplatelet and vasodilatory agent widely used to prevent thromboembolic disorders and stroke; however, its quantitative assay remains challenging due to poor solubility, high protein binding, and instability under various pH and light conditions. Extensive use was made of literature from Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, PubMed, and Google Scholar, with a focus on English-language publications. This article summarizes and critically evaluates analytical methods for the quantitative determination of DPD and its metabolites in pharmaceutical and biological matrices. Chromatographic techniques, particularly HPLC, UPLC, and LC–MS/MS, demonstrate superior precision, selectivity, and ultra-trace detection limits, making them the most reliable for pharmacokinetic and bioanalytical studies. Spectroscopic methods, such as UV–Vis and fluorescence spectroscopy, remain valuable for routine quality control due to their simplicity and cost-effectiveness, albeit with limited sensitivity. Electrochemical and voltammetric approaches, particularly DPV with nanostructured or molecularly imprinted polymer electrodes, have recently emerged as highly sensitive, rapid, and environmentally friendly alternatives capable of detecting concentrations at sub-nanomolar levels. Despite significant progress, issues such as matrix interference, signal instability, and high instrumentation costs persist. Future analytical trends should focus on developing portable, green, and cost-efficient analytical devices that utilize hybrid nanomaterials, microfluidic systems, and AI-assisted signal processing to enable precise, real-time monitoring of DPD in clinical and industrial applications, thereby bridging the gap between advanced research methods and routine analytical practice. A limitation of this review is the restriction to English-language publications, which may have resulted in the exclusion of relevant analytical methods reported in regional or non-English journals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Barzani et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: