Participant's response to the question "How satisfied are you with your injection device?" scored on a 10-point ordinal scale: 0=totally dissatisfied to 10=totally satisfied. Higher score indicated greater satisfaction with the delivery mechanism.

Modified Intent-to-Treat (mITT): All randomized participants who received at least 1 injection of test article and had at least 1 available evaluation after the first administration of test article. Number of participants analyzed (N) = participants with evaluable data.

Participant's response to the question "How satisfied are you with your injection device?" scored on a 10-point ordinal scale: 0=totally dissatisfied to 10=totally satisfied. Higher score indicated greater satisfaction with the delivery mechanism.

Per-protocol (PP): mITT participants who completed the study with no major protocol violation. N=participants with evaluable data.

Percentage of participants answering "Yes" to the question "Are you satisfied with your injection device?"

mITT. N=participants with evaluable data.

Percentage of participants answering "Yes" to the question "Are you satisfied with your injection device?"

mITT. N=participants with evaluable data.

Participant satisfaction scored on a 10-point ordinal scale: 0=totally dissatisfied to 10=totally satisfied. Higher scores indicated greater satisfaction with the delivery mechanism. Results are reported by age categories: <=46 years, >46-55 years, >55-65 years, >65 years.

mITT; last observation carried forward (LOCF).

Participant satisfaction scored on a 10-point ordinal scale: 0=totally dissatisfied to 10=totally satisfied. Higher scores indicated greater satisfaction with the delivery mechanism.

mITT; LOCF. N=total evaluable participants. n=participants evaluable in that category.

Participant satisfaction scored on a 10-point ordinal scale: 0=totally dissatisfied to 10=totally satisfied. Higher scores indicated greater satisfaction with the delivery mechanism. Participants were categorized into those having only reading/writing capacity, those at the high-school/baccalaureate level, and those at the university level.

mITT; LOCF. N=total participants with evaluable data. n=participants with evaluable data for that category.

Participant satisfaction scored on a 10-point ordinal scale: 0=totally dissatisfied to 10=totally satisfied. Higher scores indicated greater satisfaction with the delivery mechanism. The HAD scale assessed participants' levels of anxiety and depression over the past week; total 14 questions, odd-numbered questions related to anxiety. Responses scored on a 4-point scale; each question was graded in a different way. Anxiety subscale scores ranged from 0 to 21. Lower HAD Anxiety subscale scores indicated better health. Categories are anxiety subscale scores.

mITT; LOCF.

Participant satisfaction scored on a 10-point ordinal scale: 0=totally dissatisfied to 10=totally satisfied. Higher scores indicated greater satisfaction with the delivery mechanism. The HAD scale assessed participants' levels of anxiety and depression over the past week; total 14 questions, even-numbered questions related to depression. Responses scored on a 4-point scale; each question was graded in a different way. Depression subscale scores ranged from 0 to 21. Lower HAD Depression subscale scores indicated better health. Categories are depression subscale scores.

mITT; LOCF.

Participant satisfaction scored on a 10-point ordinal scale: 0=totally dissatisfied to 10=totally satisfied. Higher scores indicated greater satisfaction for the delivery mechanism. The 13-item short form of the PAM survey assessed participants' knowledge, skill, and confidence for self-management; calibrated scale score ranged from 0 to 100. Higher scores indicated more confidence in managing participants' condition and lifestyle. Results reported by PAM score: <=49.9, >49.9-56.4, >56.4-66, >66.

mITT; LOCF.

Participant satisfaction scored on a 10-point ordinal scale: 0=totally dissatisfied to 10=totally satisfied. Participants were grouped into 2 categories: those who did and did not have prior self-injection experience. Higher scores indicated greater satisfaction in the delivery mechanism.

mITT; LOCF. N=total evaluable participants. n=evaluable participants for that category.

Participant satisfaction scored on a 10-point ordinal scale: 0=totally dissatisfied to 10=totally satisfied. Higher scores indicated greater satisfaction for the delivery mechanism. Results are reported by duration of RA: <=3 years, >3-6 years, >6-13 years, >13 years.

mITT; LOCF.

Participant satisfaction scored on a 10-point ordinal scale: 0=totally dissatisfied to 10=totally satisfied. Higher scores indicated greater satisfaction for the delivery mechanism. DAS28 includes a 28 tender joint count, a 28 swollen joint count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and a general health assessment on a visual analog scale. Score ranged from 0 to 9.4. Interpretation: disease activity is low when score ≤3.2, moderate when 3.2<score≤5.1, or high when score >5.1, remission when score <2.6. Results are reported by categories of DAS28 score: <=4.7, >4.7-5.4, >5.4-6.2, >6.2.

mITT; LOCF.

Participant satisfaction scored on a 10-point ordinal scale: 0=totally dissatisfied to 10=totally satisfied. Higher scores indicated greater satisfaction for the delivery mechanism. Participants' global assessment of disease activity was measured on a visual analog scale (VAS) ranging from 0 (inactive) to 100 millimeter (mm) (extremely active). Results are reported by VAS scores observed for the participant's global assessment of RA activity: <=50 mm, >50-67 mm, >67-79 mm, >79 mm.

mITT; LOCF.

Participant satisfaction scored on a 10-point ordinal scale: 0=totally dissatisfied to 10=totally satisfied. Higher scores indicated greater satisfaction with the delivery mechanism. Physicians' global assessment of disease activity was measured on a VAS ranging from 0 (inactive) to 100 mm (extremely active). Results are reported by VAS scores observed for physician's global assessment of RA activity: <=47 mm, >47-61 mm, >61-72 mm, >72 mm.

mITT; LOCF.

Participant satisfaction scored on a 10-point ordinal scale: 0=totally dissatisfied to 10=totally satisfied. Higher scores indicated greater satisfaction with the delivery mechanism. The 20-item HAQ-DI assessed the extent of participants' functional ability. Calculation yielded a single disability score from 0=normal or no difficulty to 3=unable to do. Lower HAQ-DI scores indicated better health. Results are reported by categories of HAQ-DI scores observed: <=0.9, >0.9-1.4, >1.4-1.9, >1.9.

mITT; LOCF.

Participant satisfaction scored on a 10-point ordinal scale: 0=totally dissatisfied to 10=totally satisfied. Higher scores indicated greater satisfaction for the delivery mechanism. Participants were categorized into those who received only 1 DMARD, only 2 DMARDs, only 3 DMARDs, and at least 3 DMARDs.

mITT; LOCF. N=total evaluable participants. n=total evaluable participants for that category.

Participant satisfaction scored on a 10-point ordinal scale: 0=totally dissatisfied to 10=totally satisfied. Participants were grouped into 2 categories: those who did and did not have prior injection experience. Higher scores indicated greater satisfaction with the delivery mechanism.

mITT; LOCF. n=evaluable participants in that category.

The SF-STAI consisted of 6 questions, each scored from 1 to 4. Total score ranged from 6=less anxiety to 24=more anxiety. Higher score indicated that the participant was more anxious.

mITT. N=number of evaluable participants.

Score indicated satisfaction in response to the question "Thinking about your own life and personal circumstances, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole?" Score ranged from 0=completely dissatisfied to 10=completely satisfied. Higher scores indicated greater satisfaction.

mITT. N=number of evaluable participants.

Score indicated satisfaction in response to the question "How satisfied are you with your health?" Score ranged from 0=completely dissatisfied to 10=completely satisfied. Higher scores indicated greater satisfaction.

mITT. N=number of evaluable participants.

Score indicated satisfaction in response to the question "How satisfied are you with all the treatments you are currently receiving for your rheumatoid arthritis?" Score ranged from 0=completely dissatisfied to 10=completely satisfied. Higher scores indicated greater satisfaction.

mITT. N=number of evaluable participants.

Percentage of participants responding to Device Attributes and Subject Perceptions Questionnaire: How Easy You Find the Device Is to Use - Q1: Overall, How Easy Was It to Perform an Injection with this Device? Participants specified their responses on a 5-point Likert scale: 0=very easy to 4=very difficult.

mITT. N=participants with evaluable data.

Percentage of participants responding to Device Attributes and Subject Perceptions Questionnaire: How Easy You Find the Device Is to Use - Q2: How Easy Was It to Learn to Use the Device? Participants specified their responses on a 5-point Likert scale: 0=very easy to 4=very difficult.

mITT. N=participants with evaluable data.

Percentage of participants responding to Device Attributes and Subject Perceptions Questionnaire: How Easy You Find the Device Is to Use - Q3: How Easy Is It to Dispose Of the Device? Participants specified their responses on a 5-point Likert scale: 0=very easy to 4=very difficult.

mITT. N=participants with evaluable data.

Percentage of participants responding to Device Attributes and Subject Perceptions Questionnaire: How Easy You Find the Device Is to Use - Q4: How Easy Is It to Know When the Injection Is Completed? Participants specified their responses on a 5-point Likert scale: 0=very easy to 4=very difficult.

mITT. N=participants with evaluable data.

Percentage of participants responding to Device Attributes and Subject Perceptions Questionnaire: How Easy You Find the Device Is to Use - Q5: How Easy Is It to Hold the Device Whilst Injecting? Participants specified their responses on a 5-point Likert scale: 0=very easy to 4=very difficult.

mITT. N=participants with evaluable data.

Percentage of participants responding to Device Attributes and Subject Perceptions Questionnaire: How Easy You Find the Device Is to Use - Q6: Did You Feel any Hand Discomfort Whilst Using the Device? Participants specified their responses on a 5-point Likert scale: 0=very easy to 4=very difficult.

mITT. N=participants with evaluable data.

Percentage of participants responding to Device Attributes and Subject Perceptions Questionnaire: How Easy You Find the Device Is to Use - Q7: How Long Does It Take to Perform the Injection, Including any Preparation and Disposal? Participants specified their responses on a 5-point Likert scale: 0=<5 minutes to 4=>30 minutes.

mITT. N=participants with evaluable data.

Percentage of participants responding to Device Attributes and Subject Perceptions Questionnaire: How Convenient You Find the Device Is to Use - Q8: How Much Do You Think Injecting Etanercept Will Interfere with Your Ability to Enjoy Social or Leisure Activities? Participants specified their responses on a 5-point Likert scale: 0=not at all to 4=very much.

mITT. N=participants with evaluable data.

Percentage of participants responding to Device Attributes and Subject Perceptions Questionnaire: How Convenient You Find the Device Is to Use - Q9: Do You Think Injecting Etanercept Will Interfere with Your Usual Daily Activities? Participants specified their responses on a 5-point Likert scale: 0=not at all to 4=very much.

mITT. N=participants with evaluable data.

Percentage of participants responding to Device Attributes and Subject Perceptions Questionnaire: How Convenient You Find the Device Is to Use - Q10: How Much Do You Think Injecting Etanercept Will Interfere with Travelling on Holiday/ Business/Visiting? Participants specified their responses on a 5-point Likert scale: 0=not at all to 4=very much.

mITT. N=participants with evaluable data.

Percentage of participants responding to Device Attributes and Subject Perceptions Questionnaire: How Confident You Feel When Using the Device - Q11: Overall, How Confident Are You in Your Management of Your Weekly Injections? Participants specified their responses on a 5-point Likert scale: 0=not at all to 4=very much.

mITT. N=participants with evaluable data.

Percentage of participants responding to Device Attributes and Subject Perceptions Questionnaire: How Confident You Feel When Using the Device - Q12: How Confident Are You That You Inject the Right Amount of Medicine Every Time? Participants specified their responses on a 5-point Likert scale: 0=not at all to 4=very much.

mITT. N=participants with evaluable data.

Percentage of participants responding to Device Attributes and Subject Perceptions Questionnaire: How Confident You Feel When Using the Device - Q13: How Confident Are You That You Can Inject Yourself Properly with the Device? Participants specified their responses on a 5-point Likert scale: 0=not at all to 4=very much.

mITT. N=participants with evaluable data.

Percentage of participants responding to Device Attributes and Subject Perceptions Questionnaire: How Confident You Feel When Using the Device - Q14: Are You Confident That You Have Good Control over the Injection Process? Participants specified their responses on a 5-point Likert scale: 0=not at all to 4=very much.

mITT. N=participants with evaluable data.

Percentage of participants responding to Device Attributes and Subject Perceptions Questionnaire: How Confident You Feel When Using the Device - Q15: How Confident Are You That You Injected Yourself Successfully? Participants specified their responses on a 5-point Likert scale: 0=not at all to 4=very much.

mITT. N=participants with evaluable data.

Percentage of participants responding to Device Attributes and Subject Perceptions Questionnaire: How You Feel When Using the Device - Q16: Overall, How Nervous Do You Feel about Your Injections? Participants specified their responses on a 5-point Likert scale: 0=not at all to 4=very much.

mITT. N=participants with evaluable data.

Percentage of participants responding to Device Attributes and Subject Perceptions Questionnaire: How You Feel When Using the Device - Q17: Overall, How Nervous Do You Feel about Inserting the Needle into Your Skin? Participants specified their responses on a 5-point Likert scale: 0=not at all to 4=very much.

mITT. N=participants with evaluable data.

Percentage of participants responding to Device Attributes and Subject Perceptions Questionnaire: How You Feel When Using the Device - Q18: Do You Dislike Injecting Yourself with this Device? Participants specified their responses on a 5-point Likert scale: 0=not at all to 4=very much.

mITT. N=participants with evaluable data.

Percentage of participants responding to Device Attributes and Subject Perceptions Questionnaire: How You Feel When Using the Device - Q19: Overall, Are You Emotionally Distressed or Anxious about Your Injections? Participants specified their responses on a 5-point Likert scale: 0=not at all to 4=very much.

mITT. N=participants with evaluable data.

Percentage of participants responding to Device Attributes and Subject Perceptions Questionnaire: What Characteristics of the Device You Appreciate - Q20: How Much Do You Like the Look of the Device? Participants specified their responses on a 5-point Likert scale: 0=not at all to 4=very much.

mITT. N=participants with evaluable data.

Percentage of participants responding to Device Attributes and Subject Perceptions Questionnaire: What Characteristics of the Device You Appreciate - Q21: How Much Do You Like the Feel of the Device? Participants specified their responses on a 5-point Likert scale: 0=not at all to 4=very much.

mITT. N=participants with evaluable data.

Percentage of participants responding to Device Attributes and Subject Perceptions Questionnaire: What Characteristics of the Device You Appreciate - Q22: How Much Does the Device Look Like Something You Would Feel Comfortable to Use? Participants specified their responses on a 5-point Likert scale: 0=not at all to 4=very much.

mITT. N=participants with evaluable data.

Percentage of participants responding to Device Attributes and Subject Perceptions Questionnaire: Side Effects from Using the Device - Q23: Do You Experience Pain During or Immediately After the Injection? Participants specified their responses on a 5-point Likert scale: 0=not at all to 4=very much.

mITT. N=participants with evaluable data.

Percentage of participants responding to Device Attributes and Subject Perceptions Questionnaire: How Likely Is It That You Would Use the Device Again - Q24: To What Extent Would You Consider Alternative Devices If You Were to Continue on Etanercept? Participants specified their responses on a 5-point Likert scale: 0=very little to 4=very much.

mITT. N=participants with evaluable data.

Percentage of participants responding to Device Attributes and Subject Perceptions Questionnaire: How Likely Is It That You Would Use the Device Again - Q25: Would You Recommend this Device to Someone Else Who Needed to Self Inject? Participants specified their responses on a 5-point Likert scale: 0=not at all to 4=yes definitely.

mITT. N=participants with evaluable data.

Percentage of participants responding to Device Attributes and Subject Perceptions Questionnaire: How Likely Is It That You Would Use the Device Again - Q26: If Your Doctor Advised You to, How Likely Would You to Be Continue Injecting Regularly With this Device? Participants specified their responses on a 5-point Likert scale: 0=not at all to 4=very likely.

mITT. N=participants with evaluable data.

Participant perception was assessed with the 26 questions in the Device Attribute and Participant Questionnaire. Based on the scores assigned to the 26 questions, participants were grouped into 3 clusters (Cluster 1=very satisfied, Cluster 2=satisfied, Cluster 3=not satisfied) using multiple correspondence analysis and ascending hierarchical classification. The mean age was determined for each cluster of participants.

mITT. Number of participants analyzed (N)=total number of participants across all 3 age clusters who reported themselves as being very satisfied, satisfied, or not satisfied. n=number of participants who reported themselves as being very satisfied, satisfied, or not satisfied for the specified treatment arm.

Participant perception was assessed with the 26 questions in the Device Attribute and Participant Questionnaire. Based on the scores assigned to the 26 questions, all male and female participants were grouped into 3 clusters (Cluster 1=very satisfied, Cluster 2=satisfied, Cluster 3=not satisfied) using multiple correspondence analysis and ascending hierarchical classification. The percentage of participants who were male was determined for each cluster of participants.

mITT. n=number of participants (male plus female) who reported themselves as being very satisfied, satisfied, or not for the specified treatment arm.

Participant perception was assessed with the 26 questions in the Device Attribute and Participant Questionnaire. Based on the scores assigned to the 26 questions, all male and female participants were grouped into 3 clusters (Cluster 1=very satisfied, Cluster 2=satisfied, Cluster 3=not satisfied) using multiple correspondence analysis and ascending hierarchical classification. Percentage of participants who were female was determined for each cluster of participants.

mITT. Number of participants analyzed (N)=total number of participants (male+female) across all 3 clusters who reported themselves as being very satisfied, satisfied, or not satisfied. n=number of participants (male+female) who reported themselves as being very satisfied, satisfied, or not satisfied for the specified treatment arm and gender.

Participant perception was assessed with the 26 questions in the Device Attribute and Participant Questionnaire. Based on the scores assigned to the 26 questions, participants in all 3 social-educational level (only reading/writing capacity, high-school level, university level) were grouped into 3 clusters (Cluster 1=very satisfied, Cluster 2=satisfied, Cluster 3=not satisfied) using multiple correspondence analysis and ascending hierarchical classification. Percentage of participants with only reading/writing capacity was determined for each cluster of participants.

mITT. Number of participants analyzed (N)=total number of participants across all 3 social-educational levels and across all 3 clusters who reported themselves as very satisfied, satisfied, or not satisfied. n=participants across all 3 levels reporting themselves as very satisfied, satisfied, or not satisfied for the specified treatment arm.

Participant perception was assessed with the 26 questions in the Device Attribute and Participant Questionnaire. Based on the scores assigned to the 26 questions, participants in all 3 social-educational level (only reading/writing capacity, high-school level, university level) were grouped into 3 clusters (Cluster 1=very satisfied, Cluster 2=satisfied, Cluster 3=not satisfied) using multiple correspondence analysis and ascending hierarchical classification. Percentage of participants at high school/baccalaureate level was determined for each cluster of participants.

mITT. Number of participants analyzed (N)=total number of participants across all 3 social-educational levels and across all 3 clusters who reported themselves as very satisfied, satisfied, or not satisfied. n=participants at all 3 levels reporting themselves as very satisfied, satisfied, or not satisfied for the specified treatment arm.

Participant perception was assessed with the 26 questions in the Device Attribute and Participant Questionnaire. Based on the scores assigned to the 26 questions, participants in all 3 social-educational level (only reading/writing capacity, high-school level, university level) were grouped into 3 clusters (Cluster 1=very satisfied, Cluster 2=satisfied, Cluster 3=not satisfied) using multiple correspondence analysis and ascending hierarchical classification. Percentage of participants at the university level was determined for each cluster of participants.

mITT. Number of participants analyzed (N)=total number of participants across all 3 social-educational levels and across all 3 clusters who reported themselves as very satisfied, satisfied, or not satisfied. n=participants across all 3 levels reporting themselves as very satisfied, satisfied, or not satisfied for the specified treatment arm.

Participant perception was assessed with the 26 questions in the Device Attribute and Participant Questionnaire. Based on the scores assigned to the 26 questions, participants were grouped into 3 clusters (Cluster 1=very satisfied, Cluster 2=satisfied, Cluster 3=not satisfied) using multiple correspondence analysis and ascending hierarchical classification. The mean HAD Anxiety Subscale Score was determined for each cluster of participants. Score ranged from 0 to 21. Lower scores indicated better health.

mITT. Number of participants analyzed (N)=total number of participants across all 3 clusters who reported themselves as being very satisfied, satisfied, or not satisfied. n=number of participants who reported themselves as being very satisfied, satisfied, or not satisfied for the specified treatment arm and cluster.

Participant perception was assessed with the 26 questions in the Device Attribute and Participant Questionnaire. Based on the scores assigned to the 26 questions, participants were grouped into 3 clusters (Cluster 1=very satisfied, Cluster 2=satisfied, Cluster 3=not satisfied) using multiple correspondence analysis and ascending hierarchical classification. The mean HAD Depression Subscale Score was determined for each cluster of participants. Score ranged from 0 to 21. Lower scores indicated better health.

mITT. Number of participants analyzed (N)=total number of participants across all 3 clusters who reported themselves as being very satisfied, satisfied, or not satisfied. n=number of participants who reported themselves as being very satisfied, satisfied, or not satisfied for the specified treatment arm and cluster.

Participant perception was assessed with the 26 questions in the Device Attribute and Participant Questionnaire. Based on the scores assigned to the 26 questions, participants were grouped into 3 clusters (Cluster 1=very satisfied, Cluster 2=satisfied, Cluster 3=not satisfied) using multiple correspondence analysis and ascending hierarchical classification. The mean PAM Score was determined for each cluster of participants. Calibrated PAM scale score ranged from 0 to 100.Higher scores indicated more confidence in managing participants' condition and lifestyle.

mITT. Number of participants analyzed (N)=total number of participants across all 3 clusters who reported themselves as being very satisfied, satisfied, or not satisfied. n=number of participants who reported themselves as being very satisfied, satisfied, or not satisfied for the specified treatment arm and cluster.

Participant perception was assessed with the 26 questions in the Device Attribute and Participant Questionnaire. Based on the scores assigned to the 26 questions, participants were grouped into 3 clusters (Cluster 1=very satisfied, Cluster 2=satisfied, Cluster 3=not satisfied) using multiple correspondence analysis and ascending hierarchical classification. The percentage of participants with prior injection experience was determined for each cluster of participants.

mITT. Number of participants analyzed (N)=total number of participants across all 3 clusters who reported themselves as being very satisfied, satisfied, or not satisfied. n=number of participants who reported themselves as being very satisfied, satisfied, or not satisfied for the specified treatment arm and cluster.

Participant perception was assessed with the 26 questions in the Device Attribute and Participant Questionnaire. Based on the scores assigned to the 26 questions, participants were grouped into 3 clusters (Cluster 1=very satisfied, Cluster 2=satisfied, Cluster 3=not satisfied) using a multiple correspondence analysis and an ascending hierarchical classification. The percentage of participants with prior self-injection experience was determined for each cluster of participants.

mITT. Number of participants analyzed (N)=total number of participants across all 3 clusters who reported themselves as being very satisfied, satisfied, or not satisfied. n=number of participants who reported themselves as being very satisfied, satisfied, or not satisfied for the specified treatment arm and cluster.

Participant perception was assessed with the 26 questions in the Device Attribute and Participant Questionnaire. Based on the scores assigned to the 26 questions, participants were grouped into 3 clusters (Cluster 1=very satisfied, Cluster 2=satisfied, Cluster 3=not satisfied) using multiple correspondence analysis and ascending hierarchical classification. The mean RA Duration was determined for each cluster of participants.

mITT. Number of participants analyzed (N)=total number of participants across all 3 clusters who reported themselves as being very satisfied, satisfied, or not satisfied. n=number of participants who reported themselves as being very satisfied, satisfied , or not satisfied for the specified treatment arm and cluster.

Participant perception was assessed with the 26 questions in the Device Attribute and Participant Questionnaire. Based on the scores assigned to the 26 questions, participants were grouped into 3 clusters (Cluster 1=very satisfied, Cluster 2=satisfied, Cluster 3=not satisfied) using multiple correspondence analysis and ascending hierarchical classification. The mean DAS28 Score was determined for each cluster of participants. Score ranged from 0 to 9.4. Interpretation: disease activity is low when score ≤3.2, moderate when 3.2<score≤5.1, or high when score >5.1, remission when score <2.6.

mITT. Number of participants analyzed (N)=total number of participants across all 3 clusters who reported themselves as being very satisfied, satisfied, or not satisfied. n=number of participants who reported themselves as being very satisfied, satisfied, or not satisfied for the specified treatment arm and cluster.

Participant perception was assessed with the 26 questions in the Device Attribute and Participant Questionnaire. Based on the scores assigned to the 26 questions, participants were grouped into 3 clusters (Cluster 1=very satisfied, Cluster 2=satisfied, Cluster 3=not satisfied) using multiple correspondence analysis and ascending hierarchical classification. Participants' mean Global Assessment of RA Activity was determined for each cluster of participants. VAS scores ranged from 0 (inactive) to 100 mm (extremely active).

mITT. Number of participants analyzed (N)=total number of participants across all 3 clusters who reported themselves as being very satisfied, satisfied, or not satisfied. n=number of participants who reported themselves as being very satisfied, satisfied, or not satisfied for the specified treatment arm and cluster.

Participant perception was assessed with the 26 questions in the Device Attribute and Participant Questionnaire. Based on the scores assigned to the 26 questions, participants were grouped into 3 clusters (Cluster 1=very satisfied, Cluster 2=satisfied, Cluster 3=not satisfied) using multiple correspondence analysis and ascending hierarchical classification. Mean Physician's Global Assessment of RA Activity was determined for each cluster of participants. VAS scores ranged from 0 (inactive) to 100 mm (extremely active).

mITT. Number of participants analyzed (N)=total number of participants across all 3 clusters who reported themselves as being very satisfied, satisfied, or not satisfied. n=number of participants who reported themselves as being very satisfied, satisfied, or not satisfied for the specified treatment arm and cluster.

Participant perception was assessed with the 26 questions in the Device Attribute and Participant Questionnaire. Based on the scores assigned to the 26 questions, participants were grouped into 3 clusters (Cluster 1=very satisfied, Cluster 2=satisfied, Cluster 3=not satisfied) using multiple correspondence analysis and ascending hierarchical classification. The mean HAQ-DI Score, assessing the extent of functional ability, was determined for each cluster of participants. Disability score ranged from 0=normal or no difficulty to 3=unable to do. Lower HAQ-DI scores indicated better health.

mITT. Number of participants analyzed (N)=total number of participants across all 3 clusters who reported themselves as being very satisfied, satisfied, or not satisfied. n=number of participants who reported themselves as being very satisfied, satisfied, or not satisfied for the specified treatment arm and cluster.

Participant perception was assessed with the 26 questions in the Device Attribute and Participant Questionnaire. Based on the scores assigned to the 26 questions, all participants receiving DMARDs (only 1, only 2, only 3, 4 or more DMARDs) were grouped into 3 clusters (Cluster 1=very satisfied, Cluster 2=satisfied, Cluster 3=not satisfied) using multiple correspondence analysis and ascending hierarchical classification. Percentage of participants receiving only 1 DMARD was determined for each cluster of participants.

mITT. Number of participants analyzed (N)=total number of participants across all 3 clusters receiving only 1 DMARD who reported themselves as being very satisfied, satisfied, or not satisfied. n=number of participants who reported themselves as being very satisfied, satisfied , or not satisfied for the specified treatment arm and cluster.

Participant perception was assessed with the 26 questions in the Device Attribute and Participant Questionnaire. Based on the scores assigned to the 26 questions, all participants receiving DMARDs (only 1, only 2, only 3, 4 or more DMARDs) were grouped into 3 clusters (Cluster 1=very satisfied, Cluster 2=satisfied, Cluster 3=not satisfied) using multiple correspondence analysis and ascending hierarchical classification. Percentage of participants receiving only 2 DMARDs was determined for each cluster of participants.

mITT. Number of participants analyzed (N)=total number of participants across all 3 clusters receiving only 2 DMARDs, who reported themselves as very satisfied, satisfied, or not satisfied. n=number of participants receiving only 2 DMARDs who reported themselves as being very satisfied, satisfied , or not satisfied for the specified treatment arm.

Participant perception was assessed with the 26 questions in the Device Attribute and Participant Questionnaire. Based on the scores assigned to the 26 questions, all participants receiving DMARDs (only 1, only 2, only 3, 4 or more DMARDs) were grouped into 3 clusters (Cluster 1=very satisfied, Cluster 2=satisfied, Cluster 3=not satisfied) using multiple correspondence analysis and ascending hierarchical classification. Percentage of participants receiving only 3 DMARDs was determined for each cluster of participants.

mITT. Number of participants analyzed (N)=total number of participants across all 3 clusters receiving only 3 DMARDs who reported themselves as being very satisfied, satisfied, or not satisfied. n=number of participants receiving only 3 DMARDs who reported themselves as very satisfied, satisfied , or not satisfied for the specified treatment arm.

Participant perception was assessed with the 26 questions in the Device Attribute and Participant Questionnaire. Based on the scores assigned to the 26 questions, participants were grouped into 3 clusters (Cluster 1=very satisfied, Cluster 2=satisfied, Cluster 3=not satisfied) using multiple correspondence analysis and ascending hierarchical classification. Mean participant satisfaction was determined for each cluster of participants. Satisfaction was scored on a 10-point scale: 0=totally dissatisfied to 10=totally satisfied. Higher scores indicated greater satisfaction.

mITT. Number of participants analyzed (N)=total number of participants across all 3 clusters who reported themselves as being very satisfied, satisfied, or not satisfied. n=number of participants who reported themselves as being very satisfied, satisfied, or not satisfied for the specified treatment arm and cluster.