[Leish-l] Status of PCR for CL diagnosis

[Mario Steindel]

Dear Hugo,
PCR is most sensitive than microscopy, especially in chronic lesions. We have used both method for diagnosis of CL in Santa Catarina State.
All the best, Mário
Mário Steindel, PhD – Professor Titular
Laboratorio de Protozoologia
Departamento de Microbiologia, Imunologia e Parasitologia (MIP)
Centro de Ciências Biológicas (CCB)
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)
Setor F, Bloco A Cx. postal 476,
Florianópolis, SC, 88.040-970 – Brasil
Phone: + 55 48 3721-2958
Fax: + 55 48 3721-2011
E-mail: mario.steindel at ufsc.br
URL: www.proto.ufsc.br

Mario Steindel, PhD - Full Professor
Laboratory of Protozoology
Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Parasitology
Biological Science Center
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina
Florianopolis, SC, 88040-970 - Brazil
Phone: + 55 48 3721-2958
Fax: + 55 48 3721-2011
E-mail: mario.steindel at ufsc.br
URL: www.proto.ufsc.br



> Em 27 de mar de 2017, à(s) 01:30, Hugo Valdivia <hvalrod at hotmail.com> escreveu:
> 
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> We have been recently questioned about the use of PCR for CL  diagnosis given that the Peruvian Ministry of health considers microscopy as the standard practice for CL diagnosis. In this sense, I would like to hear your thoughts about the use of PCR for CL diagnosis, specially from those colleagues working in reference diagnostic centers. What I reviewed made me think that there is no a consensus yet on the topic.
> 
> Thank you for the information that you can provide and hope to see you in WL6.
> 
> Best regards,
> Hugo O. Valdivia,  BSc, PhD
> _______________________________________________
> Leish-l mailing list
> Leish-l at lineu.icb.usp.br
> http://lineu.icb.usp.br/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/leish-l
> 
> --
> This email was sent by icb.usp.br