Regression analysis between change in FACIT-F scale and change in following variable were assessed: DAS28-ESR (total score range: 0-9.4, higher score=more disease activity), Epworth sleepiness scale (total score range: 0-24, higher score=higher degree of sleepiness), back depression inventory (total score range: 0-63, score higher than 18 indicates moderate to severe symptoms of depression). The total score of the FACIT-F questionnaire ranges from 0=worse score to 52=better score. Regression coefficient (R) and coefficient of determination (R^2) were calculated. Difference (1-R^2)=the variation in the changes in fatigue not explained by independent variables, that is, independent contribution of these changes in fatigue to the assessment of RA. Only variables with available data were reported.

Effectiveness analysis population included all participants who had all measurements of effectiveness and had complete information of the FACIT questionnaire throughout the study. Here, Number of participants analyzed (N) = number of participants evaluable for this measure.

Regression analysis between change in FACIT-F scale and change in following variable were assessed: DAS28-ESR (total score range: 0-9.4, higher score=more disease activity), Epworth sleepiness scale (total score range: 0-24, higher score=higher degree of sleepiness), back depression inventory (total score range: 0-63, score higher than 18 indicates moderate to severe symptoms of depression). The total score of the FACIT-F questionnaire ranges from 0=worse score to 52=better score. Regression coefficient (R) and coefficient of determination (R^2) were calculated. Difference (1-R^2)=the variation in the changes in fatigue not explained by independent variables, that is, independent contribution of these changes in fatigue to the assessment of RA. Only variables with available data were reported.

Effectiveness analysis population. Here, N=number of participants evaluable for this measure.

FACIT-F is a 13-item questionnaire. Participants scored each item on a 5-point scale: 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much). Larger the participant's response to the questions (with the exception of 2 negatively stated), greater was the participant's fatigue. For all questions, except for the 2 negatively stated ones, the code was reversed and a new score was calculated as (4 minus the participant's response). The sum of all responses resulted in the FACIT-Fatigue score for a total possible score of 0 (worse score) to 52 (better score).

Effectiveness analysis population.

The hemoglobin level was measured in grams per liter (g/L). Baseline data is reported separately for Weeks 12 and 24 to include only those participants who had available data at Weeks 12 and 24, respectively.

Effectiveness analysis population. N=participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure. n=number of evaluable participants for each category.

Regression analysis between change in FACIT-F scale and change in following variable were assessed: DAS28-ESR (total score range: 0-9.4, higher score=more disease activity), Epworth sleepiness scale (total score range: 0-24, higher score=higher degree of sleepiness), back depression inventory (total score range: 0-63, score higher than 18 indicates moderate to severe symptoms of depression), serum hemoglobin, swollen joint count, morning stiffness (time taken to achieve maximum improvement), degree of pain (assessed on horizontal visual scale, 0=no pain; 10=maximum pain). The total score of the FACIT-F questionnaire ranges from 0=worse score to 52=better score. Regression coefficient (R) and coefficient of determination (R^2) were calculated. Difference (1-R^2)=the variation in the changes in fatigue not explained by independent variables, that is, independent contribution of these changes in fatigue to the assessment of RA. Only variables with available data were reported.

Effectiveness analysis population. Here, N=number of participants analyzed for this measure.

Regression analysis between change in hemoglobin level and change in following variable were assessed: Epworth sleepiness scale (total score range: 0-24, higher score=higher degree of sleepiness), back depression inventory (total score range: 0-63, score higher than 18 indicates moderate to severe symptoms of depression), swollen joint count, morning stiffness (time taken to achieve maximum improvement), degree of pain (assessed on horizontal visual scale, 0=no pain; 10=maximum pain). Hemoglobin level was measure in g/L. The regression coefficient (R) and coefficient of determination (R^2) were calculated. Difference (1-R^2) indicates the variation in the changes in hemoglobin not explained by the independent variables, that is, independent contribution of these changes in hemoglobin to the assessment of RA. Only variables with available data were reported.

Effectiveness analysis population. N=number of participants analyzed for this measure.

Regression analysis between change in hemoglobin level and change in following variable were assessed: Epworth sleepiness scale (total score range: 0-24, higher score=higher degree of sleepiness), back depression inventory (total score range: 0-63, score higher than 18 indicates moderate to severe symptoms of depression), swollen joint count, morning stiffness (time taken to achieve maximum improvement), degree of pain (assessed on horizontal visual scale, 0=no pain; 10=maximum pain). Hemoglobin level was measure in g/L. The regression coefficient (R) and coefficient of determination (R^2) were calculated. Difference (1-R^2) indicates the variation in the changes in hemoglobin not explained by the independent variables, that is, independent contribution of these changes in hemoglobin to the assessment of RA. Only variables with available data were reported.

Safety analysis population. Here, N=number of participants analyzed for this measure.

Regression analysis between the change in hemoglobin level and number of swollen joints was evaluated. Hemoglobin level was measure in g/L. The regression coefficient (R) and coefficient of determination (R^2) were calculated. Difference (1-R^2) indicates the variation in the changes in hemoglobin not explained by the independent variables, that is, independent contribution of these changes in hemoglobin to the assessment of RA. Only variables with available data were reported.

Safety analysis population. N=participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure. n=number of participants evaluable in each category.

Number of swollen joints was determined by examination of 66 joints and identifying when swelling was present. The number of swollen joints was recorded on the joint assessment form at each visit, no swelling = 0, swelling =1. Baseline data is reported separately for Weeks 12 and 24 to include only those participants who had available data at Weeks 12 and 24, respectively.

Effectiveness analysis population. N=participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.

Number of swollen joints was determined by examination of 66 joints and identifying when swelling was present. The number of swollen joints was recorded on the joint assessment form at each visit, no swelling = 0, swelling =1. Baseline data is reported separately for Weeks 12 and 24 to include only those participants who had available data at Weeks 12 and 24, respectively.

Safety population. N=participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure. n=number of participants evaluable in each category.

Duration of morning stiffness assessed as time taken to achieve maximum improvement from time participant rises. Baseline data is reported separately for Weeks 12 and 24 to include only those participants who had available data at Weeks 12 and 24, respectively.

Effectiveness analysis population. N=participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.

Duration of morning stiffness assessed as time taken to achieve maximum improvement from time participant rises. Baseline data is reported separately for Weeks 12 and 24 to include only those participants who had available data at Weeks 12 and 24, respectively.

Safety population. N=participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure. n=number of participants evaluable in each category.

Change from Baseline in 10 centimeter (cm) VAS pain score; 10-point pain intensity ordinal rating system: 0 = no pain, 1-3 = mild pain, 4-6 = moderate pain, 7-9 = severe pain, 10 = worst possible pain. Change = scores at observation minus score at Baseline. Baseline data is reported separately for Weeks 12 and 24 to include only those participants who had available data at Weeks 12 and 24, respectively.

Effectiveness analysis population. N=participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.

Change from Baseline in 10 cm VAS pain score; 10-point pain intensity ordinal rating system: 0 = no pain, 1-3 = mild pain, 4-6 = moderate pain, 7-9 = severe pain, 10 = worst possible pain. Change = scores at observation minus score at Baseline. Baseline data is reported separately for Weeks 12 and 24 to include only those participants who had available data at Weeks 12 and 24, respectively.

Safety population. N=participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure. n=number of participants evaluable in each category.

Degree of sleepiness was assessed by Epworth Sleepiness Scale. The Epworth Sleepiness Scale evaluates how likely a person is to doze off or fall asleep in 8 different sedentary situations, using for each item possible scores of 0 to 3 (0=never, 1=mild, 2=moderate and 3=severe). A final score is obtained between 0-24, where a higher score indicates a higher degree of sleepiness. Baseline data is reported separately for Weeks 12 and 24 to include only those participants who had available data at Weeks 12 and 24, respectively.

Effectiveness analysis population. N=participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure. n=number of evaluable participants in each category.

Degree of sleepiness was assessed by Epworth Sleepiness Scale. The Epworth Sleepiness Scale evaluates how likely a person is to doze off or fall asleep in 8 different sedentary situations, using for each item possible scores of 0 to 3 (0=never, 1=mild, 2=moderate and 3=severe). A final score is obtained between 0-24, where a higher score indicates a higher degree of sleepiness. Baseline data is reported separately for Weeks 12 and 24 to include only those participants who had available data at Weeks 12 and 24, respectively.

Safety population. N=participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure. n=number of participants evaluable in each category.

Mood assessed by the Beck Depression Inventory. The Beck Depression Inventory is a 21-item self-administered scale that evaluates severity of depression and is validated in Spanish on a 3 point scale (0=none to 3=severe). It measures the characteristic attitudes and symptoms of depression such as mood, pessimism, sense of failure, self-dissatisfaction, guilt, punishment, self-dislike, self-accusation, etc. The total score ranges from 0 to 63. A score higher than 18 indicates moderate to severe symptoms of depression. Analysis include only those participants who had available data at Weeks 12 and 24, respectively.

Effectiveness analysis population. N=participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.

Mood assessed by the Beck Depression Inventory. The Beck Depression Inventory is a 21-item self-administered scale that evaluates severity of depression and is validated in Spanish on a 3 point scale (0=none to 3=severe). It measures the characteristic attitudes and symptoms of depression such as mood, pessimism, sense of failure, self-dissatisfaction, guilt, punishment, self-dislike, self-accusation, etc. The total score ranges from 0 to 63. A score higher than 18 indicates moderate to severe symptoms of depression. Baseline data is reported separately for Weeks 12 and 24 to include only those participants who had available data at Weeks 12 and 24, respectively.

Safety population. N=participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure. n=number of participants evaluable in each category.

DAS28-4 erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) was calculated from SJC and tender joint count (TJC) using 28 joints count, ESR millimeter per hour (mm/hr) and patient global assessment (PtGA) of disease activity (participant rated arthritis activity assessment). The DAS28-ESR score (14) was calculated using the following formula: DAS28 = 0.56 x (square root TJC) + 0.28 x (square root SJC) + 0.70 x [Ln(ESR)] + 0.014 x (PtGA).Total score range: 0-9.4, higher score=more disease activity. DAS28-4 (ESR) less than or equal to (<=) 3.2 implied low disease activity and greater than (>)3.2 to 5.1 implied moderate to high disease activity, and DAS28-4 (ESR) less than (<)2.6 = remission. PtGA measured using a 100 mm VAS ranging from 0 = very good to 100 = very bad. Baseline data is reported separately for Weeks 12 and 24 to include only those participants who had available data at Weeks 12 and 24, respectively.

Effectiveness analysis: All participants who had at least one measurement of effectiveness subsequent to the start of tocilizumab (RoActemra) treatment were included. N=participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure. n=number of evaluable participants in each category.

DAS28-4 ESR was calculated from SJC and TJC using 28 joints count, ESR mm/hr and PtGA of disease activity (participant rated arthritis activity assessment). The DAS28-ESR score (14) was calculated using the following formula: DAS28 = 0.56 x (square root TJC) + 0.28 x (square root SJC) + 0.70 x [Ln(ESR)] + 0.014 x (PtGA).Total score range: 0-9.4, higher score=more disease activity. DAS28-4 (ESR) <=3.2 implied low disease activity and >3.2 to 5.1 implied moderate to high disease activity, and DAS28-4 (ESR) <2.6 = remission. PtGA measured using a 100 mm VAS ranging from 0 = very good to 100 = very bad. Analysis include only those participants who had available data at Weeks 12 and 24, respectively.

Safety population. N=participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.

Response was determined using EULAR criteria based upon DAS28 absolute scores at the assessment visit and the DAS28 reduction from Baseline. Participants with a score <=3.2 and reduction of >1.2 points were assessed as having a 'good' response. Participants with a score >3.2 with reduction of >1.2 points, or a score <=5.1 with reduction of >0.6 to <=1.2 points, were assessed as having a 'moderate' response. Participants with a score >5.1 with reduction of >0.6 to <=1.2 points, or any score with reduction ≤0.6 points, were assessed as nonresponders with response recorded as 'none.' Participants with response is reported. DAS28 is described in outcome measure 19.

Effectiveness analysis population. N=participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure. n=number of evaluable participants in each category.

Response was determined using EULAR criteria based upon DAS28 absolute scores at the assessment visit and the DAS28 reduction from Baseline. Participants with a score <=3.2 and reduction of >1.2 points were assessed as having a 'good' response. Participants with a score >3.2 with reduction of >1.2 points, or a score <=5.1 with reduction of >0.6 to <=1.2 points, were assessed as having a 'moderate' response. Participants with a score >5.1 with reduction of >0.6 to <=1.2 points, or any score with reduction ≤0.6 points, were assessed as nonresponders with response recorded as 'none.' Participants with response is reported. DAS28 is described in outcome measure 19.

Safety population. N=participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure. n=number of evaluable participants in each category.