The patients will be treated in accordance with the requirements of the labelling of Enbrel® in Germany. The dosage and duration of therapy is to be determined by the physician to meet the patients' individual needs for treatment.

To assess radiological damage, mTSS score was used in participants with rheumatoid arthritis and mTSS adapted score was used in participants with psoriatic arthritis. Radiographs of the hands and feet were assessed by central raters. Total mTSS score range was 0 (no radiological damage) to 448 (extreme radiological damage); and total mTSS adapted score range was 0 (no radiological damage) to 528 (extreme radiological damage), where higher mTSS and mTSS adapted scores indicate a worse health status in participants with rheumatoid arthritis and participants with psoriatic arthritis, respectively.

The normalized change in total scores (mTSS or mTSS adapted) were computed as normalized per year (normalized progression). The change of normalized progression was classified as: increase (greater than [>] 0.5), no change (-0.5 to 0.5) and decrease (less than [<] -0.5). Participants with no change or a decrease were considered to be in radiographic remission.

The normalized change in total scores (mTSS or mTSS adapted) were computed as normalized per year (normalized progression). The change of normalized progression was classified as: increase (>0.5), no change (-0.5 to 0.5) and decrease (<-0.5). Participants with no change or a decrease were considered to be in radiographic remission.

The normalized change in total scores (mTSS or mTSS adapted) were computed as normalized per year (normalized progression). The change of normalized progression was classified as: increase (>0.5), no change (-0.5 to 0.5) and decrease (<-0.5). Participants with no change or a decrease were considered to be in radiographic remission.

The normalized change in total scores (mTSS or mTSS adapted) were computed as normalized per year (normalized progression). The change of normalized progression was classified as: increase (>0.5), no change (-0.5 to 0.5) and decrease (<-0.5). Participants with no change or a decrease were considered to be in radiographic remission.

Effect on normalized radiographic progression with respect to ACPA-RF was evaluated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. Dependent variable was normalized progression under treatment with Etanercept and independent variable was groups of positive testing of ACPA and RF at baseline.

Effect on normalized radiographic progression with respect to use of concomitant medication at baseline was evaluated using an ANOVA model. Dependent variable was normalized progression under treatment with Etanercept and independent variable was groups of concomitant medication as found among the medication given concomitantly during study that is recorded at baseline.

Effect on normalized radiographic progression of previous treatment with biologics was evaluated using an ANOVA model. Dependent variable was normalized progression under treatment with Etanercept and independent variable was previous treatment with biologics.

Effect on radiographic progression with respect to baseline DAS-28 was evaluated using ANOVA model. Dependent variable was normalized progression under treatment with Etanercept and independent variable was baseline DAS-28. Baseline DAS-28 is less than or equal to (<=) 5.1 or >5.1. DAS28: score range from 0 (none) to 9.4 (extreme disease activity); low =2.6 to 3.2, moderate =3.2 to 5.1, and high disease activity >5.1. DAS28 score of <2.6 indicates disease remission.

Total erosion score as per van der Hejde method consisted of 2 dimensions: a) hands (32 erosion locations, each location graded from 0 [no erosion] to 5 [maximum severity], sum of grading of each location resulted in score of 0 to 160); and b) feet (12 erosion locations, each location graded from 0 [no erosion] to 10 [maximum severity], sum of grading of each location resulted in score of 0 to 120). Sum of erosion scores of hand (0 to 160) and feet (0 to 120) gave a total erosion score as 0 to 280, where 0 was no erosion at all and 280 was worst possible condition, higher scores indicated severe joint destruction.

Total joint space narrow score as per van der Hejde method consisted of 2 dimensions: a) hands (30 joint space locations, each location graded from 0 [normal joint space] to 4 [bony ankylosis], sum of grading of each location resulted in score of 0 to 120); and b) feet (12 erosion locations, each location graded from 0 [no erosion] to 4 [bony ankylosis], sum of grading of each location resulted in score of 0 to 48). Sum of joint space narrow scores of hand (0 to 120) and feet (0 to 48) gave a total joint space narrow score as 0 to 168, where 0 was normal joint space and 168 was maximum narrowing in joints, higher scores indicated severe joint destruction.

FFbH is a self-administered patient questionnaire composed by 18 questions on functional ability in activities of daily living. Each question was answered by the participant as "Yes, I can perform the activity without difficulty" (score assigned =2), "Yes, but with difficulties" (score assigned =1) and "No or only with external help" (score assigned =0). Final FFbH score (%) was then computed according to formula: (Sum of scores*100) divided by (2*number of valid answers), ranging between 0 (no functional capacity) to 100 (full functional capacity); higher scores indicate better daily activities. FFbH functional remission was defined as FFbH functional capacity of >= 83%.

DAS28 was calculated from swollen joint count and tender joint count using 28 joint count, C-reactive protein (CRP) in milligram per liter (mg/L) and participant global assessment (PtGA) of disease activity measured on a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS) ranging from 0 (good condition) to 100 (worst condition), where higher scores indicate worse health condition). DAS28 total score range: 0 (no disease activity) to 9.4 (maximum disease activity), higher score indicates more disease activity. DAS-28 score of 2.6 to 3.2= low, 3.2 to 5.1= moderate and >5.1= high disease activity. DAS-28 score of <2.6= disease remission. DAS28-4(CRP) = (0.56*sqrt[TJC28] + 0.28*sqrt[SJC28] + 0.36*ln[CRP+1]) + 0.014*GH + 0.96) and DAS28-4(ESR) = (0.56*sqrt[TJC28] + 0.28*sqrt[SJC28] + 0.70*ln[ESR] + 0.014*GH), where sqrt = square root, ln = natural logarithm.

CDAI was calculated from tender and swollen joints using 28 joint count, participant global assessment (PtGA) and physician global assessment (PhyGA). PtGA and PhyGA both were assessed on 0-100 mm VAS scale, where higher scores indicated greater affection due to disease activity. CDAI total score ranged from 0 to 76, where higher scores indicated higher disease activity. CDAI score of <=10 indicates low disease activity and a score of <= 2.8 indicates remission.

SDAI was calculated from tender and swollen joints using 28 joint count, participant global assessment (PtGA), physician global assessment and (PhyGA) and CRP (in mg/L). PtGA and PhyGA both were assessed on 0-100 mm VAS scale, where higher scores indicated greater affection due to disease activity. SDAI total score ranged from 0 to 86, where higher scores indicated higher disease activity. SDAI score of <=11 indicates low disease activity and a score of <=3.3 indicates remission.

CDAI was calculated from tender and swollen joints using 28 joint count, PtGA and PhyGA. CDAI total score ranged from 0 to 76, where higher scores indicated higher disease activity. CDAI score of <=10 indicates low disease activity and a score of <= 2.8 indicates remission. SDAI was calculated from tender and swollen joints using 28 joint count, PtGA, PhyGA and CRP (in mg/L). SDAI total score ranged from 0 to 86, where higher scores indicated higher disease activity. SDAI score of <=11 indicates low disease activity and a score of <=3.3 indicates remission. PtGA and PhyGA both were assessed on 0-100 mm VAS scale, where higher scores indicated greater affection due to disease activity.

CDAI was calculated from tender and swollen joints using 28 joint count, PtGA and PhyGA. CDAI total score ranged from 0 to 76, where higher scores indicated higher disease activity. CDAI score of <=10 indicates low disease activity and a score of <= 2.8 indicates remission. SDAI was calculated from tender and swollen joints using 28 joint count, PtGA, PhyGA and CRP (in mg/L). SDAI total score ranged from 0 to 86, where higher scores indicated higher disease activity. SDAI score of <=11 indicates low disease activity and a score of <=3.3 indicates remission. PtGA and PhyGA both were assessed on 0-100 mm VAS scale, where higher scores indicated greater affection due to disease activity.

VAS: participants placed a mark indicating the intensity of their pain on a scale of 0 (no pain) to 100 mm (worst possible pain). Higher scores indicate greater level of pain.

PhyGA: physician marked intensity of participants' pain on a visual analogue scale of 0 (no disease activity) to 100 mm (worst possible condition). Higher scores indicate greater level of disease activity.

PtGA: participant assessed their disease activity using a 100 mm visual analog scale ranging from 0 = very good to 100 = worst. Higher scores indicate worse health status.

EQ-5D: participant rated questionnaire to assess generic health status in two parts: single utility score and visual analog scale. For utility score, participants rated their current health state on 5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain and discomfort, and anxiety and depression with each dimension having three levels of function: 1 indicates no problem; 2 indicates some problem; 3 indicates extreme problem.

Rigidity was temporary when 'Yes' was given for the question if daily activities could be done without stiffness; rigidity was permanent when 'No' was given for the question if daily activities could be done without stiffness.

Participants with psoriatic arthritis were distributed in following different classes depending upon percentage (%) of BSA affected: 1) less than (<) 3 %, 2) 3-10%, 3) 11-20% and 4) >20%. Psoriatic arthritis affecting <3% BSA was considered as mild, 3 to 10 % as moderate and >10 percent as severe.

In this outcome measure change in number of nails affected by psoriatic arthritis at specified week compared to baseline is reported. Nails included both finger nails and toe nails.

In this outcome measure change in number of inflamed dactylitic digits at specified week compared to baseline is reported. Dactylitis is inflammation of dactylitic digits (fingers and toes).

In this outcome measure number of participants with use of glucocorticoids and DMARDs at baseline and specified weeks are reported. If participants used glucocorticoids and DMARDs, it was denoted by "Yes" and if they did not use, it was denoted by "No". Data have been reported separately for glucocorticoids and DMARDs at specified weeks respectively, in 4 categories as: 1) Baseline: No and Specified Week: No, 2) Baseline: Yes and Specified Week: No, 3) Baseline: No and Specified Week: Yes, 4) Baseline: Yes and Specified Week: Yes.

In this outcome number of participants who participated or not participated in RUDI and PIT and impact of their participation in continuation or termination of treatment with Etanercept is reported. For participants whom data was not recorded is reported under category "No Data".

In this outcome number of participants who participated or not participated in RUDI and PIT and impact of their participation in quality of life parameters using EQ-5D health questionnaire is reported. For participants whom data was not recorded is reported under category "No Data". EQ-5D: participant rated questionnaire to assess generic health status in two parts: single utility score and visual analog scale. For utility score, participants rated their current health state on 5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain and discomfort, and anxiety and depression with each dimension having three levels of function: 1 indicates no problem; 2 indicates some problem; 3 indicates extreme problem.

An AE was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug without regard to possibility of causal relationship. SAE was an AE resulting in any of the following outcomes or deemed significant for any other reason: death; initial or prolonged inpatient hospitalization; life-threatening experience (immediate risk of dying); persistent or significant disability/incapacity; congenital anomaly. A treatment emergent AE was defined as an event that emerged during the treatment period that was absent before treatment, or worsened during the treatment period relative to the pretreatment state. AEs included both serious and non-serious adverse events. AEs were classified according to the severity in 3 categories a)mild: AEs not interfered with participant's usual function b)moderate: AEs interfered to some extent with participant's usual function c)severe: AEs interfered significantly with participant's usual function. Participants may be counted in more than 1 category.

Number of participants those who discontinued Etanercept treatment at Week 78 and 156 are reported in this outcome measure.

Treatment-related AE was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug. SAE was an AE resulting in any of the following outcomes or deemed significant for any other reason: death; initial or prolonged inpatient hospitalization; life-threatening experience (immediate risk of dying); persistent or significant disability/incapacity; congenital anomaly. A treatment emergent AE was defined as an event that emerged during the treatment period that was absent before treatment, or worsened during the treatment period relative to the pretreatment state. AEs included both serious and non-serious adverse events. Relatedness to study treatment was assessed by the investigator.

Physicians and participants rated the tolerability of Etanercept treatment by means of a 4-point scale as: 1) very good, 2) good, 3) moderate and 4) insufficient.

In this outcome measure total number of participants with pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions are reported. Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions included pregnancy, abortion, abortion spontaneous or premature baby.

Number of participants who used medication other than Etanercept for relief of pain. It was determined by the treating physician.

Participants with psoriatic arthritis, who were on Etanercept routine treatment (as per the requirements of the labelling of Enbrel in Germany; dosage and duration of therapy was determined by the physician to meet the participants' individual needs for treatment), were observed for safety and radiological efficacy up to Week 156. During Phase 1 participants were followed up after every 13 weeks up to Week 78 and during Phase 2 participants were followed up after every 16 weeks from Week 78 till Week 156.

Participants with unclear diagnosis, who were on Etanercept routine treatment (as per the requirements of the labelling of Enbrel in Germany; dosage and duration of therapy was determined by the physician to meet the participants' individual needs for treatment), were observed for safety and radiological efficacy up to Week 156. During Phase 1 participants were followed up after every 13 weeks up to Week 78 and during Phase 2 participants were followed up after every 16 weeks from Week 78 till Week 156.

Total of all reporting groups

Race and Ethnicity were not collected from any participant.

To assess radiological damage, mTSS score was used in participants with rheumatoid arthritis and mTSS adapted score was used in participants with psoriatic arthritis. Radiographs of the hands and feet were assessed by central raters. Total mTSS score range was 0 (no radiological damage) to 448 (extreme radiological damage); and total mTSS adapted score range was 0 (no radiological damage) to 528 (extreme radiological damage), where higher mTSS and mTSS adapted scores indicate a worse health status in participants with rheumatoid arthritis and participants with psoriatic arthritis, respectively.

Completer analysis set for Phase 1: all participants who had received at least 1 dose of Etanercept and had clinical data for Rx1 and Rx2 and provided data for end of Phase 1 of study. "Overall Number of Participants Analyzed" = participants evaluable for this outcome measure. "Number Analyzed"= participants evaluable for the specified time points.

To assess radiological damage, mTSS score was used in participants with rheumatoid arthritis and mTSS adapted score was used in participants with psoriatic arthritis. Radiographs of the hands and feet were assessed by central raters. Total mTSS score range was 0 (no radiological damage) to 448 (extreme radiological damage); and total mTSS adapted score range was 0 (no radiological damage) to 528 (extreme radiological damage), where higher mTSS and mTSS adapted scores indicate a worse health status in participants with rheumatoid arthritis and participants with psoriatic arthritis, respectively.

Efficacy analysis set for Phase 2 included all participants who had received at least 1 dose of Etanercept and had Rx1 and end of Phase 2 X-ray (Rx3). Here, "Overall Number of Participants Analyzed" signifies number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

To assess radiological damage, mTSS score was used in participants with rheumatoid arthritis and mTSS adapted score was used in participants with psoriatic arthritis. Radiographs of the hands and feet were assessed by central raters. Total mTSS score range was 0 (no radiological damage) to 448 (extreme radiological damage); and total mTSS adapted score range was 0 (no radiological damage) to 528 (extreme radiological damage), where higher mTSS and mTSS adapted scores indicate a worse health status in participants with rheumatoid arthritis and participants with psoriatic arthritis, respectively.

Completer analysis set for Phase 2 included all participants who had received at least 1 dose of Etanercept, and had clinical data for the obligatory X-ray (Rx1) and Rx3, and completed Phase 2 of the study. Here, "Overall Number of Participants Analyzed" signifies number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

The normalized change in total scores (mTSS or mTSS adapted) were computed as normalized per year (normalized progression). The change of normalized progression was classified as: increase (greater than [>] 0.5), no change (-0.5 to 0.5) and decrease (less than [<] -0.5). Participants with no change or a decrease were considered to be in radiographic remission.

Efficacy analysis set for Phase 1 included all participants who had received at least 1 dose of Etanercept and had Rx1 and Rx2. Here, "Overall Number of Participants Analyzed" = number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure and "Number Analyzed" = number of participants evaluable for the specified time points.

The normalized change in total scores (mTSS or mTSS adapted) were computed as normalized per year (normalized progression). The change of normalized progression was classified as: increase (>0.5), no change (-0.5 to 0.5) and decrease (<-0.5). Participants with no change or a decrease were considered to be in radiographic remission.

CAS for phase 1 included all participants who had received at least 1 dose of Etanercept, and had Rx1 and Rx2, and provided data for end of Phase 1 of study. Here, "Overall Number of Participants Analyzed"=number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure and "Number Analyzed"=number of participants evaluable for the specified time points.

The normalized change in total scores (mTSS or mTSS adapted) were computed as normalized per year (normalized progression). The change of normalized progression was classified as: increase (>0.5), no change (-0.5 to 0.5) and decrease (<-0.5). Participants with no change or a decrease were considered to be in radiographic remission.

Efficacy analysis set for Phase 2 included all participants who had received at least 1 dose of Etanercept and had Rx1 and Rx3. Here, "Overall Number of Participants Analyzed" signifies number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

The normalized change in total scores (mTSS or mTSS adapted) were computed as normalized per year (normalized progression). The change of normalized progression was classified as: increase (>0.5), no change (-0.5 to 0.5) and decrease (<-0.5). Participants with no change or a decrease were considered to be in radiographic remission.

CAS for phase 2 included all participants who had received at least 1 dose of Etanercept, and had Rx1 and Rx2, and completed phase 2 of the study. Here, "Overall Number of Participants Analyzed" signifies number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

Linear relationship between radiographic progression and disease duration was evaluated using a linear regression model. Dependent variable was normalized progression under treatment with Etanercept and independent variable was disease duration.

Efficacy analysis set for Phase 1 included participants who received at least 1 dose of Etanercept and had Rx1 and Rx2. Here, "Overall Number of Participants Analyzed" signifies number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

Effect on normalized radiographic progression with respect to ACPA-RF was evaluated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. Dependent variable was normalized progression under treatment with Etanercept and independent variable was groups of positive testing of ACPA and RF at baseline.

Efficacy analysis set for Phase 1 included participants who received at least 1 dose of Etanercept and had Rx1 and Rx2. Here, "Overall Number of Participants Analyzed" = number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure and "Number Analyzed" = number of participants evaluable for the specified rows.

Effect on normalized radiographic progression with respect to use of concomitant medication at baseline was evaluated using an ANOVA model. Dependent variable was normalized progression under treatment with Etanercept and independent variable was groups of concomitant medication as found among the medication given concomitantly during study that is recorded at baseline.

Efficacy analysis set for Phase 1 included participants who received at least 1 dose of Etanercept and had Rx1 and Rx2. Here, "Overall Number of Participants Analyzed" = number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure and "Number Analyzed" = number of participants evaluable for the specified rows.

Effect on normalized radiographic progression of previous treatment with biologics was evaluated using an ANOVA model. Dependent variable was normalized progression under treatment with Etanercept and independent variable was previous treatment with biologics.

Efficacy analysis set for Phase 1 included participants who received at least 1 dose of Etanercept and had Rx1 and Rx2. Here, "Overall Number of Participants Analyzed" = number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure and "Number Analyzed" = number of participants evaluable for the specified rows.

Effect on radiographic progression with respect to baseline DAS-28 was evaluated using ANOVA model. Dependent variable was normalized progression under treatment with Etanercept and independent variable was baseline DAS-28. Baseline DAS-28 is less than or equal to (<=) 5.1 or >5.1. DAS28: score range from 0 (none) to 9.4 (extreme disease activity); low =2.6 to 3.2, moderate =3.2 to 5.1, and high disease activity >5.1. DAS28 score of <2.6 indicates disease remission.

Efficacy analysis set for Phase 1 included participants who received at least 1 dose of Etanercept and had Rx1 and Rx2. Here, "Overall Number of Participants Analyzed" = number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure and "Number Analyzed" = number of participants evaluable for the specified rows.

Total erosion score as per van der Hejde method consisted of 2 dimensions: a) hands (32 erosion locations, each location graded from 0 [no erosion] to 5 [maximum severity], sum of grading of each location resulted in score of 0 to 160); and b) feet (12 erosion locations, each location graded from 0 [no erosion] to 10 [maximum severity], sum of grading of each location resulted in score of 0 to 120). Sum of erosion scores of hand (0 to 160) and feet (0 to 120) gave a total erosion score as 0 to 280, where 0 was no erosion at all and 280 was worst possible condition, higher scores indicated severe joint destruction.

Efficacy analysis set included participants who received at least 1 dose of Etanercept and had Rx1 and Rx2 or had Rx1 and Rx3. Here, "Overall Number of Participants Analyzed" = number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure and "Number Analyzed" = number of participants evaluable for the specified time points.

Total joint space narrow score as per van der Hejde method consisted of 2 dimensions: a) hands (30 joint space locations, each location graded from 0 [normal joint space] to 4 [bony ankylosis], sum of grading of each location resulted in score of 0 to 120); and b) feet (12 erosion locations, each location graded from 0 [no erosion] to 4 [bony ankylosis], sum of grading of each location resulted in score of 0 to 48). Sum of joint space narrow scores of hand (0 to 120) and feet (0 to 48) gave a total joint space narrow score as 0 to 168, where 0 was normal joint space and 168 was maximum narrowing in joints, higher scores indicated severe joint destruction.

Efficacy analysis set included participants who received at least 1 dose of Etanercept and had Rx1 and Rx2 or have Rx1 and Rx3. Here, "Overall Number of Participants Analyzed" = number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure and "Number Analyzed" = number of participants evaluable for the specified time points.

FFbH is a self-administered patient questionnaire composed by 18 questions on functional ability in activities of daily living. Each question was answered by the participant as "Yes, I can perform the activity without difficulty" (score assigned =2), "Yes, but with difficulties" (score assigned =1) and "No or only with external help" (score assigned =0). Final FFbH score (%) was then computed according to formula: (Sum of scores*100) divided by (2*number of valid answers), ranging between 0 (no functional capacity) to 100 (full functional capacity); higher scores indicate better daily activities. FFbH functional remission was defined as FFbH functional capacity of >= 83%.

Full analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 dose of Etanercept and had at least 1 effectiveness measurement after start of treatment. Here, "Number Analyzed" signifies number of participants evaluable for the specified time points.

DAS28 was calculated from swollen joint count and tender joint count using 28 joint count, C-reactive protein (CRP) in milligram per liter (mg/L) and participant global assessment (PtGA) of disease activity measured on a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS) ranging from 0 (good condition) to 100 (worst condition), where higher scores indicate worse health condition). DAS28 total score range: 0 (no disease activity) to 9.4 (maximum disease activity), higher score indicates more disease activity. DAS-28 score of 2.6 to 3.2= low, 3.2 to 5.1= moderate and >5.1= high disease activity. DAS-28 score of <2.6= disease remission. DAS28-4(CRP) = (0.56*sqrt[TJC28] + 0.28*sqrt[SJC28] + 0.36*ln[CRP+1]) + 0.014*GH + 0.96) and DAS28-4(ESR) = (0.56*sqrt[TJC28] + 0.28*sqrt[SJC28] + 0.70*ln[ESR] + 0.014*GH), where sqrt = square root, ln = natural logarithm.

Full analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 dose of Etanercept and had at least 1 effectiveness measurement after start of treatment. Here, "Number Analyzed" signifies number of participants evaluable for the specified time points.

CDAI was calculated from tender and swollen joints using 28 joint count, participant global assessment (PtGA) and physician global assessment (PhyGA). PtGA and PhyGA both were assessed on 0-100 mm VAS scale, where higher scores indicated greater affection due to disease activity. CDAI total score ranged from 0 to 76, where higher scores indicated higher disease activity. CDAI score of <=10 indicates low disease activity and a score of <= 2.8 indicates remission.

Full analysis set: all participants who received at least 1 dose of Etanercept and had at least 1 effectiveness measurement after start of treatment. "Number Analyzed" = number of participants evaluable for the specified time points. Data for this outcome measure was to be collected and evaluated only for participants with rheumatoid arthritis.

SDAI was calculated from tender and swollen joints using 28 joint count, participant global assessment (PtGA), physician global assessment and (PhyGA) and CRP (in mg/L). PtGA and PhyGA both were assessed on 0-100 mm VAS scale, where higher scores indicated greater affection due to disease activity. SDAI total score ranged from 0 to 86, where higher scores indicated higher disease activity. SDAI score of <=11 indicates low disease activity and a score of <=3.3 indicates remission.

Full analysis set: all participants who received at least 1 dose of Etanercept and had at least 1 effectiveness measurement after start of treatment. "Number Analyzed" = number of participants evaluable for the specified time points. Data for this outcome measure was to be collected and evaluated only for participants with rheumatoid arthritis.

CDAI was calculated from tender and swollen joints using 28 joint count, PtGA and PhyGA. CDAI total score ranged from 0 to 76, where higher scores indicated higher disease activity. CDAI score of <=10 indicates low disease activity and a score of <= 2.8 indicates remission. SDAI was calculated from tender and swollen joints using 28 joint count, PtGA, PhyGA and CRP (in mg/L). SDAI total score ranged from 0 to 86, where higher scores indicated higher disease activity. SDAI score of <=11 indicates low disease activity and a score of <=3.3 indicates remission. PtGA and PhyGA both were assessed on 0-100 mm VAS scale, where higher scores indicated greater affection due to disease activity.

Full analysis set: all participants who received at least 1 dose of Etanercept and had at least 1 effectiveness measurement after start of treatment. "Number Analyzed" = number of participants evaluable for the specified time points. Data for this outcome measure was to be collected and evaluated only for participants with rheumatoid arthritis.

CDAI was calculated from tender and swollen joints using 28 joint count, PtGA and PhyGA. CDAI total score ranged from 0 to 76, where higher scores indicated higher disease activity. CDAI score of <=10 indicates low disease activity and a score of <= 2.8 indicates remission. SDAI was calculated from tender and swollen joints using 28 joint count, PtGA, PhyGA and CRP (in mg/L). SDAI total score ranged from 0 to 86, where higher scores indicated higher disease activity. SDAI score of <=11 indicates low disease activity and a score of <=3.3 indicates remission. PtGA and PhyGA both were assessed on 0-100 mm VAS scale, where higher scores indicated greater affection due to disease activity.

Full analysis set. Here, "Overall Number of Participants Analyzed" = number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure and "Number Analyzed" = number of participants evaluable for the specified time points. Data for this outcome measure was to be collected and evaluated only for participants with rheumatoid arthritis.

VAS: participants placed a mark indicating the intensity of their pain on a scale of 0 (no pain) to 100 mm (worst possible pain). Higher scores indicate greater level of pain.

Full analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 dose of Etanercept and had at least 1 effectiveness measurement after start of treatment. Here, "Number Analyzed" signifies number of participants evaluable for the specified time points.

PhyGA: physician marked intensity of participants' pain on a visual analogue scale of 0 (no disease activity) to 100 mm (worst possible condition). Higher scores indicate greater level of disease activity.

Full analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 dose of Etanercept and had at least 1 effectiveness measurement after start of treatment. Here, "Number Analyzed" signifies number of participants evaluable for the specified time points.

PtGA: participant assessed their disease activity using a 100 mm visual analog scale ranging from 0 = very good to 100 = worst. Higher scores indicate worse health status.

Full analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 dose of Etanercept and had at least 1 effectiveness measurement after start of treatment. Here, "Number Analyzed" signifies number of participants evaluable for the specified time points.

EQ-5D: participant rated questionnaire to assess generic health status in two parts: single utility score and visual analog scale. For utility score, participants rated their current health state on 5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain and discomfort, and anxiety and depression with each dimension having three levels of function: 1 indicates no problem; 2 indicates some problem; 3 indicates extreme problem.

Full analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 dose of Etanercept and had at least 1 effectiveness measurement after start of treatment. Here, "Number Analyzed" signifies number of participants evaluable for the specified rows.

Rigidity was temporary when 'Yes' was given for the question if daily activities could be done without stiffness; rigidity was permanent when 'No' was given for the question if daily activities could be done without stiffness.

Full analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 dose of Etanercept and had at least 1 effectiveness measurement after start of treatment. Here, "Number Analyzed" signifies number of participants evaluable for the specified time points.

Participants with psoriatic arthritis were distributed in following different classes depending upon percentage (%) of BSA affected: 1) less than (<) 3 %, 2) 3-10%, 3) 11-20% and 4) >20%. Psoriatic arthritis affecting <3% BSA was considered as mild, 3 to 10 % as moderate and >10 percent as severe.

Full analysis set. Here, "Number Analyzed" signifies number of participants evaluable for the specified time points. Data for this outcome measure was to be collected and evaluated only for participants with psoriatic arthritis.

In this outcome measure change in number of nails affected by psoriatic arthritis at specified week compared to baseline is reported. Nails included both finger nails and toe nails.

Full analysis set. Here, "Number Analyzed" signifies number of participants evaluable for the specified time points. Data for this outcome measure was to be collected and evaluated only for participants with psoriatic arthritis.

In this outcome measure change in number of inflamed dactylitic digits at specified week compared to baseline is reported. Dactylitis is inflammation of dactylitic digits (fingers and toes).

Full analysis set. Here, "Number Analyzed" signifies number of participants evaluable for the specified time points. Data for this outcome measure was to be collected and evaluated only for participants with psoriatic arthritis.

In this outcome measure number of participants with use of glucocorticoids and DMARDs at baseline and specified weeks are reported. If participants used glucocorticoids and DMARDs, it was denoted by "Yes" and if they did not use, it was denoted by "No". Data have been reported separately for glucocorticoids and DMARDs at specified weeks respectively, in 4 categories as: 1) Baseline: No and Specified Week: No, 2) Baseline: Yes and Specified Week: No, 3) Baseline: No and Specified Week: Yes, 4) Baseline: Yes and Specified Week: Yes.

Full analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 dose of Etanercept and had at least 1 effectiveness measurement after start of treatment. Here, "Number Analyzed" = number of participants evaluable for the specified rows.

In this outcome number of participants who participated or not participated in RUDI and PIT and impact of their participation in continuation or termination of treatment with Etanercept is reported. For participants whom data was not recorded is reported under category "No Data".

Full analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 dose of Etanercept and had at least 1 effectiveness measurement after start of treatment. Here, "Overall Number of participants analyzed" = number of participants evaluable for this measure and "Number Analyzed" = number of participants evaluable for the specified rows.

In this outcome number of participants who participated or not participated in RUDI and PIT and impact of their participation in quality of life parameters using EQ-5D health questionnaire is reported. For participants whom data was not recorded is reported under category "No Data". EQ-5D: participant rated questionnaire to assess generic health status in two parts: single utility score and visual analog scale. For utility score, participants rated their current health state on 5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain and discomfort, and anxiety and depression with each dimension having three levels of function: 1 indicates no problem; 2 indicates some problem; 3 indicates extreme problem.

Full analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 dose of Etanercept and had at least 1 effectiveness measurement after start of treatment. Here, "Overall Number of participants analyzed" = number of participants evaluable for this measure and "Number Analyzed" = number of participants evaluable for the specified rows.

An AE was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug without regard to possibility of causal relationship. SAE was an AE resulting in any of the following outcomes or deemed significant for any other reason: death; initial or prolonged inpatient hospitalization; life-threatening experience (immediate risk of dying); persistent or significant disability/incapacity; congenital anomaly. A treatment emergent AE was defined as an event that emerged during the treatment period that was absent before treatment, or worsened during the treatment period relative to the pretreatment state. AEs included both serious and non-serious adverse events.

Safety analysis set included all patients who received at least 1 dose of Etanercept.

An AE was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug without regard to possibility of causal relationship. SAE was an AE resulting in any of the following outcomes or deemed significant for any other reason: death; initial or prolonged inpatient hospitalization; life-threatening experience (immediate risk of dying); persistent or significant disability/incapacity; congenital anomaly. A treatment emergent AE was defined as an event that emerged during the treatment period that was absent before treatment, or worsened during the treatment period relative to the pretreatment state. AEs included both serious and non-serious adverse events. AEs were classified according to the severity in 3 categories a)mild: AEs not interfered with participant's usual function b)moderate: AEs interfered to some extent with participant's usual function c)severe: AEs interfered significantly with participant's usual function. Participants may be counted in more than 1 category.

Safety analysis set included all patients who received at least 1 dose of Etanercept. Here, "Overall Number of Participants Analyzed" signifies number of participants who had at least 1 treatment AE.

Number of participants those who discontinued Etanercept treatment at Week 78 and 156 are reported in this outcome measure.

Safety analysis set included all patients who received at least 1 dose of Etanercept. Here, "Number Analyzed" signifies number of participants evaluable for specified time points.

Treatment-related AE was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug. SAE was an AE resulting in any of the following outcomes or deemed significant for any other reason: death; initial or prolonged inpatient hospitalization; life-threatening experience (immediate risk of dying); persistent or significant disability/incapacity; congenital anomaly. A treatment emergent AE was defined as an event that emerged during the treatment period that was absent before treatment, or worsened during the treatment period relative to the pretreatment state. AEs included both serious and non-serious adverse events. Relatedness to study treatment was assessed by the investigator.

Safety analysis set included all patients who received at least 1 dose of Etanercept. Here, "Overall Number of Participants Analyzed" signifies number of participants who had at least 1 treatment AE.

Physicians and participants rated the tolerability of Etanercept treatment by means of a 4-point scale as: 1) very good, 2) good, 3) moderate and 4) insufficient.

Safety analysis set included all patients who received at least 1 dose of Etanercept. Here, "Number Analyzed" signifies number of participants evaluable for specified rows.

In this outcome measure total number of participants with pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions are reported. Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions included pregnancy, abortion, abortion spontaneous or premature baby.

Safety analysis set included all patients who received at least 1 dose of Etanercept.

Number of participants who used medication other than Etanercept for relief of pain. It was determined by the treating physician.

Safety analysis set included all patients who received at least 1 dose of Etanercept.

Participants with psoriatic arthritis, who were on Etanercept routine treatment (as per the requirements of the labelling of Enbrel in Germany; dosage and duration of therapy was determined by the physician to meet the participants' individual needs for treatment), were observed for safety and radiological efficacy up to Week 156. During Phase 1 participants were followed up after every 13 weeks up to Week 78 and during Phase 2 participants were followed up after every 16 weeks from Week 78 till Week 156.

Participants with unclear diagnosis, who were on Etanercept routine treatment (as per the requirements of the labelling of Enbrel in Germany; dosage and duration of therapy was determined by the physician to meet the participants' individual needs for treatment), were observed for safety and radiological efficacy up to Week 156. During Phase 1 participants were followed up after every 13 weeks up to Week 78 and during Phase 2 participants were followed up after every 16 weeks from Week 78 till Week 156.