Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.

LabKate said:

For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Take it one variable at a time. Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent argument can untangle them after the fact.

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself. Four weeks is the usual minimum for anything pharmacological on this board, and two weeks of data has told you almost nothing.

Following on from LabKate — and this may be the naive question:

What would you measure differently if you were starting again?

Moderator note: the sourcing question belongs in the vendor section and has been split out. Carry on.