One thing that is still open after Dr.ReproEndo’s answer:

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

stefan_berlin said:

Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.

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.

Moderator note: leaving this open. It is being argued well and the disagreement is the useful part. Report rather than reply if it drifts again.

stefan_berlin said:

Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.

This answered a question I did not know how to ask.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.