I think most docs prescribe procrit before transfusion because as stated above, one-size-fits-all. Plus, it's much easier on both the patient and the doctor. Procrit can be prescribed and self-administered at home in minutes, whereas transfusion requires an apheresis center with special equipment and about 2 hours per pint of blood transfused, added to which there continues to be a shortage of blood supply in general.
Also, I believe the incidence of risks comparatively is higher with transfusion than with procrit. The transfusion does give an immediate rise in hemoglobin, but it doesn't last more than a few weeks. In my husband's case, he was transfused twice... once at 24 weeks 2 weeks after starting procrit, and the 2nd time at 42 weeks after which point they increased the procrit dosage to 2x a week.
I don't know which costs more dollars, but I think from a medical-cost perspective giving out blood can be much more costly than doling out procrit.
You can also get transfused with platelets which I know is better then the medication. Anyone get platelets?
I'd rather take the procrit and manage the anemia in a meaningful fashion rather than have a transfusion and have it to up then down then need another one and have it go up then down - sounds like a lot of pain to me when you can take the procrit and stay over ten nice and evenly. Feels much better over ten rather than under!
I think alagirl had multiple transfusions and as a result had high iron build up in her blood. I believe she ended up having iron chelation therapy. High iron is something we definitely do not want with HCV.
Trinity
A transfusion is almost immediate gratification. Procrit stuff may take a couple of weeks for effect. For a transfusion, a blood match is required and some types are rarer. Procrit is one-size-fits-all. And, what goes down will go up in both situations but down again with ongoing hcv treatment. My preference would be premptive procrit at a predefined level to avoid drastic anemia. I don't know the comparative costs.