One thing that is still open after TrialTracker_MD’s answer:

Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?

dave_SLC said:

If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.

I am going to disagree with the direction of travel here. The thread has converged on the tidiest answer rather than the best-supported one, and those are not the same thing.

dave_SLC said:

If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.

Fair, and it stops being fair at the extremes. The middle of the range is well understood; the ends are where the honest answer is that nobody knows.

Worth separating that from the titration schedule, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.

dave_SLC said:

If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.

Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it.

From the other side of the consultation, briefly. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.

Worth separating that from the titration schedule, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.