Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.

Worth restating a point from upthread for anyone joining at this page:

The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the same conditions. Nobody wants that answer and it is still the answer.

hyun_seoul 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. Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion. Almost every disagreement here turns out to be two people measuring different things and comparing the numbers anyway.

Moderator note: a post naming a supplier has been edited. Discuss suppliers in the review sections, not here. Report rather than reply if it drifts again.

A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:

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