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

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

TirzTom said:

Update: the thing I was blaming turned out not to be the cause.

Careful with the causal language. Two things moving together in a period when five things changed is not a mechanism, and stating it as one makes the thread less useful to somebody reading it later.

TirzTom said:

Update: the thing I was blaming turned out not to be the cause.

Agreed, with the usual condition: that holds for the average and this board is a collection of individuals. A population claim and a personal prediction are different things and get quoted interchangeably.

TirzTom said:

Update: the thing I was blaming turned out not to be the cause.

Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.