Comparative Effectiveness Of Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors And Tofacitinib Use In Earlier Lines Of Therapy And Use As Monotherapy.

CDAI was a simplified index for assessing the disease activity comprising of the swollen joint counts (SJC), tender/painful joint counts (TJC), participant's global assessment of disease activity (PtGA) and physician's global assessment of disease activity (PGA). CDAI is the numerical sum of 4 outcome parameters: SJC and TJC (based on 28-joint assessment range from 0 to 28, higher scores meant worse condition), PtGA and PGA (score range from 0 to 10, assessed on 0-10 centimeter (cm) visual analog scale; higher scores indicated greater affection due to disease activity). CDAI total score = 0 (no disease) to 76 (severe disease), higher scores indicated worse condition. Achievement of LDA was defined by CDAI less than or equal to (<=)10 in participants with moderate or high disease activity CDAI greater than (>) 10 at baseline. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

CDAI was a simplified index for assessing the disease activity comprising of the SJC, TJC, PtGA and PGA. CDAI is the numerical sum of 4 outcome parameters: SJC and TJC (based on 28-joint assessment, range from 0 to 28, higher scores meant worse condition), PtGA and PGA (score range from 0 to 10, assessed on 0-10 cm visual analog scale; higher scores indicated greater affection due to disease activity). CDAI total score = 0 (no disease) to 76 (severe disease), higher scores indicated worse condition. Achievement of LDA was defined by CDAI <=10 in participants with moderate or high disease activity CDAI>10 at baseline. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

CDAI was a simplified index for assessing the disease activity comprising of the SJC, TJC, PtGA and PGA. CDAI is the numerical sum of 4 outcome parameters: SJC and TJC (based on 28-joint assessment, range from 0 to 28, higher scores meant worse condition), PtGA and PGA (score range from 0 to 10, assessed on 0-10 cm visual analog scale; higher scores indicated greater affection due to disease activity). CDAI total score = 0 (no disease) to 76 (severe disease), higher scores indicated worse condition. Achievement of LDA was defined by CDAI <=10 in participants with moderate or high disease activity CDAI>10 at baseline. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

CDAI was a simplified index for assessing the disease activity comprising of the SJC, TJC, PtGA and PGA. CDAI is the numerical sum of 4 outcome parameters: SJC and TJC (based on 28-joint assessment, range from 0 to 28, higher scores meant worse condition), PtGA and PGA (score range from 0 to 10, assessed on 0-10 cm visual analog scale; higher scores indicated greater affection due to disease activity). CDAI total score = 0 (no disease) to 76 (severe disease), higher scores indicated worse condition. Achievement of LDA was defined by CDAI <=10 in participants with moderate or high disease activity CDAI>10 at baseline. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

CDAI was a simplified index for assessing the disease activity comprising of the SJC, TJC, PtGA and PGA. CDAI is the numerical sum of 4 outcome parameters: SJC and TJC (based on 28-joint assessment, range from 0 to 28, higher scores meant worse condition), PtGA and PGA (score range from 0 to 10, assessed on 0-10 cm visual analog scale; higher scores indicated greater affection due to disease activity). CDAI total score = 0 (no disease) to 76 (severe disease), higher scores indicated worse condition. Achievement of LDA was defined by CDAI <=10 in participants with moderate or high disease activity CDAI>10 at baseline. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

CDAI was a simplified index for assessing the disease activity comprising of the SJC, TJC, PtGA and PGA. CDAI is the numerical sum of 4 outcome parameters: SJC and TJC (based on 28-joint assessment, range from 0 to 28, higher scores meant worse condition), PtGA and PGA (score range from 0 to 10, assessed on 0-10 cm visual analog scale; higher scores indicated greater affection due to disease activity). CDAI total score = 0 (no disease) to 76 (severe disease), higher scores indicated worse condition. Achievement of LDA was defined by CDAI <=10 in participants with moderate or high disease activity CDAI>10 at baseline. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

CDAI was a simplified index for assessing the disease activity comprising of the SJC, TJC, PtGA and PGA. CDAI is the numerical sum of 4 outcome parameters: SJC and TJC (based on 28-joint assessment, range from 0 to 28, higher scores meant worse condition), PtGA and PGA (score range from 0 to 10, assessed on 0-10 cm visual analog scale; higher scores indicated greater affection due to disease activity). CDAI total score = 0 (no disease) to 76 (severe disease), higher scores indicated worse condition. Achievement of LDA was defined by CDAI <=10 in participants with moderate or high disease activity CDAI>10 at baseline. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

CDAI was a simplified index for assessing the disease activity comprising of the SJC, TJC, PtGA and PGA. CDAI is the numerical sum of 4 outcome parameters: SJC and TJC (based on 28-joint assessment, range from 0 to 28, higher scores meant worse condition), PtGA and PGA (score range from 0 to 10, assessed on 0-10 cm visual analog scale; higher scores indicated greater affection due to disease activity). CDAI total score = 0 (no disease) to 76 (severe disease), higher scores indicated worse condition. Achievement of LDA was defined by CDAI <=10 in participants with moderate or high disease activity CDAI>10 at baseline. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

CDAI was a simplified index for assessing the disease activity comprising of the SJC, TJC, PtGA and PGA. CDAI is the numerical sum of 4 outcome parameters: SJC and TJC (based on 28-joint assessment, range from 0 to 28, higher scores meant worse condition), PtGA and PGA (score range from 0 to 10, assessed on 0-10 cm visual analog scale; higher scores indicated greater affection due to disease activity). CDAI total score = 0 (no disease) to 76 (severe disease), higher scores indicated worse condition. Achievement of LDA was defined by CDAI <=10 in participants with moderate or high disease activity CDAI>10 at baseline. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

CDAI was a simplified index for assessing the disease activity comprising of the SJC, TJC, PtGA and PGA. CDAI is the numerical sum of 4 outcome parameters: SJC and TJC (based on 28-joint assessment, range from 0 to 28, higher scores meant worse condition), PtGA and PGA (score range from 0 to 10, assessed on 0-10 cm visual analog scale; higher scores indicated greater affection due to disease activity). CDAI total score = 0 (no disease) to 76 (severe disease), higher scores indicated worse condition. Achievement of LDA was defined by CDAI <=10 in participants with moderate or high disease activity CDAI>10 at baseline. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

CDAI was a simplified index for assessing the disease activity comprising of the SJC, TJC, PtGA and PGA. CDAI is the numerical sum of 4 outcome parameters: SJC and TJC (based on 28-joint assessment, range from 0 to 28, higher scores meant worse condition), PtGA and PGA (score range from 0 to 10, assessed on 0-10 cm visual analog scale; higher scores indicated greater affection due to disease activity). CDAI total score = 0 (no disease) to 76 (severe disease), higher scores indicated worse condition. Achievement of remission was defined by CDAI (<=2.8) in those participants with LDA, moderate or high disease activity (CDAI >2.8) at baseline. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

CDAI was a simplified index for assessing the disease activity comprising of the SJC, TJC, PtGA and PGA. CDAI is the numerical sum of 4 outcome parameters: SJC and TJC (based on 28-joint assessment, range from 0 to 28, higher scores meant worse condition), PtGA and PGA (score range from 0 to 10, assessed on 0-10 cm visual analog scale; higher scores indicated greater affection due to disease activity). CDAI total score = 0 (no disease) to 76 (severe disease), higher scores indicated worse condition. Achievement of remission was defined by CDAI (<=2.8) in those participants with LDA, moderate or high disease activity (CDAI >2.8) at baseline. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

CDAI was a simplified index for assessing the disease activity comprising of the SJC, TJC, PtGA and PGA. CDAI is the numerical sum of 4 outcome parameters: SJC and TJC (based on 28-joint assessment, range from 0 to 28, higher scores meant worse condition), PtGA and PGA (score range from 0 to 10, assessed on 0-10 cm visual analog scale; higher scores indicated greater affection due to disease activity). CDAI total score = 0 (no disease) to 76 (severe disease), higher scores indicated worse condition. Achievement of remission was defined by CDAI (<=2.8) in those participants with LDA, moderate or high disease activity (CDAI >2.8) at baseline. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

CDAI was a simplified index for assessing the disease activity comprising of the SJC, TJC, PtGA and PGA. CDAI is the numerical sum of 4 outcome parameters: SJC and TJC (based on 28-joint assessment, range from 0 to 28, higher scores meant worse condition), PtGA and PGA (score range from 0 to 10, assessed on 0-10 cm visual analog scale; higher scores indicated greater affection due to disease activity). CDAI total score = 0 (no disease) to 76 (severe disease), higher scores indicated worse condition. Achievement of remission was defined by CDAI (<=2.8) in those participants with LDA, moderate or high disease activity (CDAI >2.8) at baseline. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

CDAI was a simplified index for assessing the disease activity comprising of the SJC, TJC, PtGA and PGA. CDAI is the numerical sum of 4 outcome parameters: SJC and TJC (based on 28-joint assessment, range from 0 to 28, higher scores meant worse condition), PtGA and PGA (score range from 0 to 10, assessed on 0-10 cm visual analog scale; higher scores indicated greater affection due to disease activity). CDAI total score = 0 (no disease) to 76 (severe disease), higher scores indicated worse condition. Achievement of remission was defined by CDAI (<=2.8) in those participants with LDA, moderate or high disease activity (CDAI >2.8) at baseline. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

CDAI was a simplified index for assessing the disease activity comprising of the SJC, TJC, PtGA and PGA. CDAI is the numerical sum of 4 outcome parameters: SJC and TJC (based on 28-joint assessment, range from 0 to 28, higher scores meant worse condition), PtGA and PGA (score range from 0 to 10, assessed on 0-10 cm visual analog scale; higher scores indicated greater affection due to disease activity). CDAI total score = 0 (no disease) to 76 (severe disease), higher scores indicated worse condition. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

CDAI was a simplified index for assessing the disease activity comprising of the SJC, TJC, PtGA and PGA. CDAI is the numerical sum of 4 outcome parameters: SJC and TJC (based on 28-joint assessment, range from 0 to 28, higher scores meant worse condition), PtGA and PGA (score range from 0 to 10, assessed on 0-10 cm visual analog scale; higher scores indicated greater affection due to disease activity). CDAI total score = 0 (no disease) to 76 (severe disease), higher scores indicated worse condition. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

CDAI was a simplified index for assessing the disease activity comprising of the SJC, TJC, PtGA and PGA. CDAI is the numerical sum of 4 outcome parameters: SJC and TJC (based on 28-joint assessment, range from 0 to 28, higher scores meant worse condition), PtGA and PGA (score range from 0 to 10, assessed on 0-10 cm visual analog scale; higher scores indicated greater affection due to disease activity). CDAI total score = 0 (no disease) to 76 (severe disease), higher scores indicated worse condition. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

CDAI was a simplified index for assessing the disease activity comprising of the SJC, TJC, PtGA and PGA. CDAI is the numerical sum of 4 outcome parameters: SJC and TJC (based on 28-joint assessment, range from 0 to 28, higher scores meant worse condition), PtGA and PGA (score range from 0 to 10, assessed on 0-10 cm visual analog scale; higher scores indicated greater affection due to disease activity). CDAI total score = 0 (no disease) to 76 (severe disease), higher scores indicated worse condition. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

CDAI was a simplified index for assessing the disease activity comprising of the SJC, TJC, PtGA and PGA. CDAI is the numerical sum of 4 outcome parameters: SJC and TJC (based on 28-joint assessment, range from 0 to 28, higher scores meant worse condition), PtGA and PGA (score range from 0 to 10, assessed on 0-10 cm visual analog scale; higher scores indicated greater affection due to disease activity). CDAI total score = 0 (no disease) to 76 (severe disease), higher scores indicated worse condition. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

mACR 20/50/70 response was defined as response greater than or equal to( >=) 20 percent (%), 50%, or 70% improvement in tender and swollen joint count and 20%, 50% or 70% improvement respectively in 2 of the following 4 criteria: 1) participant assessment of pain (scored from 0 to 100, higher scores indicated worsening of pain); 2) participant global assessment of disease activity (scored from 0 to 100, higher scores indicated worsening of condition); 3) physician global assessment of disease activity (scored from 0 to 100, higher scores indicated worsening of condition); 4) self-assessed disability index of the modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ) [scored from 0 to 3, higher scores indicated worsening of function]. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

mACR 20/50/70 response was defined as response >= 20%, 50%, or 70% improvement in tender and swollen joint count and 20%, 50% or 70% improvement respectively in 2 of the following 4 criteria: 1) participant assessment of pain (scored from 0 to 100, higher scores indicated worsening of pain); 2) participant global assessment of disease activity (scored from 0 to 100, higher scores indicated worsening of condition); 3) physician global assessment of disease activity (scored from 0 to 100, higher scores indicated worsening of condition); 4) self-assessed disability index of the mHAQ (scored from 0 to 3, higher scores indicated worsening of function). Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

mACR 20/50/70 response was defined as response >= 20%, 50%, or 70% improvement in tender and swollen joint count and 20%, 50% or 70% improvement respectively in 2 of the following 4 criteria: 1) participant assessment of pain (scored from 0 to 100, higher scores indicated worsening of pain); 2) participant global assessment of disease activity (scored from 0 to 100, higher scores indicated worsening of condition); 3) physician global assessment of disease activity (scored from 0 to 100, higher scores indicated worsening of condition); 4) self-assessed disability index of the mHAQ (scored from 0 to 3, higher scores indicated worsening of function). Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

mACR 20/50/70 response was defined as response >= 20%, 50%, or 70% improvement in tender and swollen joint count and 20%, 50% or 70% improvement respectively in 2 of the following 4 criteria: 1) participant assessment of pain (scored from 0 to 100, higher scores indicated worsening of pain); 2) participant global assessment of disease activity (scored from 0 to 100, higher scores indicated worsening of condition); 3) physician global assessment of disease activity (scored from 0 to 100, higher scores indicated worsening of condition); 4) self-assessed disability index of the mHAQ (scored from 0 to 3, higher scores indicated worsening of function). Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

mACR 20/50/70 response was defined as response >= 20%, 50%, or 70% improvement in tender and swollen joint count and 20%, 50% or 70% improvement respectively in 2 of the following 4 criteria: 1) participant assessment of pain (scored from 0 to 100, higher scores indicated worsening of pain); 2) participant global assessment of disease activity (scored from 0 to 100, higher scores indicated worsening of condition); 3) physician global assessment of disease activity (scored from 0 to 100, higher scores indicated worsening of condition); 4) self-assessed disability index of the mHAQ (scored from 0 to 3, higher scores indicated worsening of function). Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

DAS28 ESR was calculated from the number of swollen joints (SJC) and painful joints (PJC) using the 28 joints count, ESR (millimeters per hour [mm/hour]) and participant's global assessment (PGA) of disease activity (participant rated arthritis activity assessment with transformed scores ranging 0 to 10; higher scores indicated high disease activity). DAS 28 ESR =0.56*sqrt (PJC28) + 0.28*sqrt (SJC28) + 0.70*In (ESR) + 0.014*PtGA; ln = natural logarithm, sqrt = square root of. DAS28 ESR <= 3.2 = low disease activity, DAS28 ESR > 3.2 and <=5.1 = moderate and >5.1 = high disease activity. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

DAS28 ESR was calculated from the number of SJC and PJC using the 28 joints count, ESR (mm/hour) and PGA of disease activity (participant rated arthritis activity assessment with transformed scores ranging 0 to 10; higher scores indicated high disease activity). DAS 28 ESR =0.56*sqrt (PJC28) + 0.28*sqrt (SJC28) + 0.70*In (ESR) + 0.014*PtGA; ln = natural logarithm, sqrt = square root of. DAS28 ESR <= 3.2 = low disease activity, DAS28 ESR > 3.2 and <=5.1 = moderate and >5.1 = high disease activity. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

DAS28 ESR was calculated from the number of SJC and PJC using the 28 joints count, ESR (mm/hour) and PGA of disease activity (participant rated arthritis activity assessment with transformed scores ranging 0 to 10; higher scores indicated high disease activity). DAS 28 ESR =0.56*sqrt (PJC28) + 0.28*sqrt (SJC28) + 0.70*In (ESR) + 0.014*PtGA; ln = natural logarithm, sqrt = square root of. DAS28 ESR <= 3.2 = low disease activity, DAS28 ESR > 3.2 and <=5.1 = moderate and >5.1 = high disease activity. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

DAS28 ESR was calculated from the number of SJC and PJC using the 28 joints count, ESR (mm/hour) and PGA of disease activity (participant rated arthritis activity assessment with transformed scores ranging 0 to 10; higher scores indicated high disease activity). DAS 28 ESR =0.56*sqrt (PJC28) + 0.28*sqrt (SJC28) + 0.70*In (ESR) + 0.014*PtGA; ln = natural logarithm, sqrt = square root of. DAS28 ESR <= 3.2 = low disease activity, DAS28 ESR > 3.2 and <=5.1 = moderate and >5.1 = high disease activity. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

DAS28 ESR was calculated from the number of SJC and PJC using the 28 joints count, ESR (mm/hour) and PGA of disease activity (participant rated arthritis activity assessment with transformed scores ranging 0 to 10; higher scores indicated high disease activity). DAS 28 ESR =0.56*sqrt (PJC28) + 0.28*sqrt (SJC28) + 0.70*In (ESR) + 0.014*PtGA; ln = natural logarithm, sqrt = square root of. DAS28 ESR <= 3.2 = low disease activity, DAS28 ESR > 3.2 and <=5.1 = moderate and >5.1 = high disease activity. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

HAQ: self-reported, valid assessment of functional disability in RA. The 20-question instrument assessed ability of participants to perform daily activities in 8 functional areas: dressing, arising, eating, walking, reaching, gripping, hygiene, and carrying out daily activities. Eight items were rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 0 to 3, where 0 = without any difficulty, 1 = with some difficulty, 2 = with much difficulty, and 3 = unable to do. Overall score was computed as the sum of domain scores and divided by the number of domains answered. Total possible score ranged from 0 to 3, where 0 = least difficulty and 3 = extreme difficulty, higher scores indicating worse functioning. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

HAQ: self-reported, valid assessment of functional disability in RA. The 20-question instrument assessed ability of participants to perform daily activities in 8 functional areas: dressing, arising, eating, walking, reaching, gripping, hygiene, and carrying out daily activities. Eight items were rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 0 to 3, where 0 = without any difficulty, 1 = with some difficulty, 2 = with much difficulty, and 3 = unable to do. Overall score was computed as the sum of domain scores and divided by the number of domains answered. Total possible score ranged from 0 to 3, where 0 = least difficulty and 3 = extreme difficulty, higher scores indicating worse functioning. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

HAQ: self-reported, valid assessment of functional disability in RA. The 20-question instrument assessed ability of participants to perform daily activities in 8 functional areas: dressing, arising, eating, walking, reaching, gripping, hygiene, and carrying out daily activities. Eight items were rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 0 to 3, where 0 = without any difficulty, 1 = with some difficulty, 2 = with much difficulty, and 3 = unable to do. Overall score was computed as the sum of domain scores and divided by the number of domains answered. Total possible score ranged from 0 to 3, where 0 = least difficulty and 3 = extreme difficulty, higher scores indicating worse functioning. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

HAQ: self-reported, valid assessment of functional disability in RA. The 20-question instrument assessed ability of participants to perform daily activities in 8 functional areas: dressing, arising, eating, walking, reaching, gripping, hygiene, and carrying out daily activities. Eight items were rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 0 to 3, where 0 = without any difficulty, 1 = with some difficulty, 2 = with much difficulty, and 3 = unable to do. Overall score was computed as the sum of domain scores and divided by the number of domains answered. Total possible score ranged from 0 to 3, where 0 = least difficulty and 3 = extreme difficulty, higher scores indicating worse functioning. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

HAQ: self-reported, valid assessment of functional disability in RA. The 20-question instrument assessed ability of participants to perform daily activities in 8 functional areas: dressing, arising, eating, walking, reaching, gripping, hygiene, and carrying out daily activities. Eight items were rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 0 to 3, where 0 = without any difficulty, 1 = with some difficulty, 2 = with much difficulty, and 3 = unable to do. Overall score was computed as the sum of domain scores and divided by the number of domains answered. Total possible score ranged from 0 to 3, where 0 = least difficulty and 3 = extreme difficulty, higher scores indicating worse functioning. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

MCID improvement assessed based on HAQ. HAQ: self-reported, valid assessment of functional disability in RA. Assessed based on ability of participants to perform daily activities in 8 categories: dressing, arising, eating, walking, reaching, gripping, hygiene, and carrying out daily activities. Eight items were rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 0 to 3, where 0 = without any difficulty, 1 = with some difficulty, 2 = with much difficulty, and 3 = unable to do. Overall score was computed as the sum of domain scores and divided by the number of domains answered. Total possible score ranged from 0 to 3, where 0 = least difficulty and 3 = extreme difficulty, higher scores indicating worse functioning. Achievement of MCID for the HAQ was defined as decrease in minimum of 0.22 units from baseline. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

MCID improvement assessed based on HAQ. HAQ: self-reported, valid assessment of functional disability in RA. Assessed based on ability of participants to perform daily activities in 8 categories: dressing, arising, eating, walking, reaching, gripping, hygiene, and carrying out daily activities. Eight items were rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 0 to 3, where 0 = without any difficulty, 1 = with some difficulty, 2 = with much difficulty, and 3 = unable to do. Overall score was computed as the sum of domain scores and divided by the number of domains answered. Total possible score ranged from 0 to 3, where 0 = least difficulty and 3 = extreme difficulty, higher scores indicating worse functioning. Achievement of MCID for the HAQ was defined as decrease in minimum of 0.22 units from baseline. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

MCID improvement assessed based on HAQ. HAQ: self-reported, valid assessment of functional disability in RA. Assessed based on ability of participants to perform daily activities in 8 categories: dressing, arising, eating, walking, reaching, gripping, hygiene, and carrying out daily activities. Eight items were rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 0 to 3, where 0 = without any difficulty, 1 = with some difficulty, 2 = with much difficulty, and 3 = unable to do. Overall score was computed as the sum of domain scores and divided by the number of domains answered. Total possible score ranged from 0 to 3, where 0 = least difficulty and 3 = extreme difficulty, higher scores indicating worse functioning. Achievement of MCID for the HAQ was defined as decrease in minimum of 0.22 units from baseline. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

MCID improvement assessed based on HAQ. HAQ: self-reported, valid assessment of functional disability in RA. Assessed based on ability of participants to perform daily activities in 8 categories: dressing, arising, eating, walking, reaching, gripping, hygiene, and carrying out daily activities. Eight items were rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 0 to 3, where 0 = without any difficulty, 1 = with some difficulty, 2 = with much difficulty, and 3 = unable to do. Overall score was computed as the sum of domain scores and divided by the number of domains answered. Total possible score ranged from 0 to 3, where 0 = least difficulty and 3 = extreme difficulty, higher scores indicating worse functioning. Achievement of MCID for the HAQ was defined as decrease in minimum of 0.22 units from baseline. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

MCID improvement assessed based on HAQ. HAQ: self-reported, valid assessment of functional disability in RA. Assessed based on ability of participants to perform daily activities in 8 categories: dressing, arising, eating, walking, reaching, gripping, hygiene, and carrying out daily activities. Eight items were rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 0 to 3, where 0 = without any difficulty, 1 = with some difficulty, 2 = with much difficulty, and 3 = unable to do. Overall score was computed as the sum of domain scores and divided by the number of domains answered. Total possible score ranged from 0 to 3, where 0 = least difficulty and 3 = extreme difficulty, higher scores indicating worse functioning. Achievement of MCID for the HAQ was defined as decrease in minimum of 0.22 units from baseline. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

mHAQ is the modified version of HAQ which simplifies it from 20 questions to 8 questions, which assessed the ability to perform tasks due to rheumatoid arthritis. It comprised of 8 questions on 8 categories of daily living activities: dress/groom; arise; eat; grip; walk; hygiene; reach; and common activities over past week before specified time point. Eight items were rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 0 to 3, where 0 = without any difficulty, 1 = with some difficulty, 2 = with much difficulty, and 3 = unable to do. Overall score was computed as the sum of domain scores and divided by the number of domains answered. Total possible score ranged from 0 to 3, where 0 = least difficulty and 3 = extreme difficulty, higher scores indicating worse functioning. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

mHAQ is the modified version of HAQ which simplifies it from 20 questions to 8 questions, which assessed the ability to perform tasks due to rheumatoid arthritis. It comprised of 8 questions on 8 categories of daily living activities: dress/groom; arise; eat; grip; walk; hygiene; reach; and common activities over past week before specified time point. Eight items were rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 0 to 3, where 0 = without any difficulty, 1 = with some difficulty, 2 = with much difficulty, and 3 = unable to do. Overall score was computed as the sum of domain scores and divided by the number of domains answered. Total possible score ranged from 0 to 3, where 0 = least difficulty and 3 = extreme difficulty, higher scores indicating worse functioning. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

mHAQ is the modified version of HAQ which simplifies it from 20 questions to 8 questions, which assessed the ability to perform tasks due to rheumatoid arthritis. It comprised of 8 questions on 8 categories of daily living activities: dress/groom; arise; eat; grip; walk; hygiene; reach; and common activities over past week before specified time point. Eight items were rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 0 to 3, where 0 = without any difficulty, 1 = with some difficulty, 2 = with much difficulty, and 3 = unable to do. Overall score was computed as the sum of domain scores and divided by the number of domains answered. Total possible score ranged from 0 to 3, where 0 = least difficulty and 3 = extreme difficulty, higher scores indicating worse functioning. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

mHAQ is the modified version of HAQ which simplifies it from 20 questions to 8 questions, which assessed the ability to perform tasks due to rheumatoid arthritis. It comprised of 8 questions on 8 categories of daily living activities: dress/groom; arise; eat; grip; walk; hygiene; reach; and common activities over past week before specified time point. Eight items were rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 0 to 3, where 0 = without any difficulty, 1 = with some difficulty, 2 = with much difficulty, and 3 = unable to do. Overall score was computed as the sum of domain scores and divided by the number of domains answered. Total possible score ranged from 0 to 3, where 0 = least difficulty and 3 = extreme difficulty, higher scores indicating worse functioning. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

mHAQ is the modified version of HAQ which simplifies it from 20 questions to 8 questions, which assessed the ability to perform tasks due to rheumatoid arthritis. It comprised of 8 questions on 8 categories of daily living activities: dress/groom; arise; eat; grip; walk; hygiene; reach; and common activities over past week before specified time point. Eight items were rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 0 to 3, where 0 = without any difficulty, 1 = with some difficulty, 2 = with much difficulty, and 3 = unable to do. Overall score was computed as the sum of domain scores and divided by the number of domains answered. Total possible score ranged from 0 to 3, where 0 = least difficulty and 3 = extreme difficulty, higher scores indicating worse functioning. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

Pain VAS was assessed using 100 millimeter (mm) horizontal line to rate pain. Score ranged from 0 mm to 100 mm; where, 0 = no pain and 100 = worst possible pain. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

Pain VAS was assessed using 100 mm horizontal line to rate pain. Score ranged from 0 mm to 100 mm; where, 0 = no pain and 100 = worst possible pain. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

Pain VAS was assessed using 100 mm horizontal line to rate pain. Score ranged from 0 mm to 100 mm; where, 0 = no pain and 100 = worst possible pain. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

Pain VAS was assessed using 100 mm horizontal line to rate pain. Score ranged from 0 mm to 100 mm; where, 0 = no pain and 100 = worst possible pain. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

Pain VAS was assessed using 100 mm horizontal line to rate pain. Score ranged from 0 mm to 100 mm; where, 0 = no pain and 100 = worst possible pain. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

Pain VAS was assessed using 100 mm horizontal line to rate pain. Score ranged from 0 mm to 100 mm; where, 0 = no pain and 100 = worst possible pain. Participants who reported VAS <= 20 mm were categorized with mild pain and were reported in this outcome measure. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

Pain VAS was assessed using 100 mm horizontal line to rate pain. Score ranged from 0 mm to 100 mm; where, 0 = no pain and 100 = worst possible pain. Participants who reported VAS <= 20 mm were categorized with mild pain and were reported in this outcome measure. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

Pain VAS was assessed using 100 mm horizontal line to rate pain. Score ranged from 0 mm to 100 mm; where, 0 = no pain and 100 = worst possible pain. Participants who reported VAS <= 20 mm were categorized with mild pain and were reported in this outcome measure. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

Pain VAS was assessed using 100 mm horizontal line to rate pain. Score ranged from 0 mm to 100 mm; where, 0 = no pain and 100 = worst possible pain. Participants who reported VAS <= 20 mm were categorized with mild pain and were reported in this outcome measure. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

Pain VAS was assessed using 100 mm horizontal line to rate pain. Score ranged from 0 mm to 100 mm; where, 0 = no pain and 100 = worst possible pain. Participants who reported VAS <= 20 mm were categorized with mild pain and were reported in this outcome measure. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

Participants assessed their fatigue using a 0 to 100 mm VAS scale, where 0 mm = no fatigue and 100 mm = worst possible fatigue. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

Participants assessed their fatigue using a 0 to 100 mm VAS scale, where 0 mm = no fatigue and 100 mm = worst possible fatigue. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

Participants assessed their fatigue using a 0 to 100 mm VAS scale, where 0 mm = no fatigue and 100 mm = worst possible fatigue. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

Participants assessed their fatigue using a 0 to 100 mm VAS scale, where 0 mm = no fatigue and 100 mm = worst possible fatigue. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

Participants assessed their fatigue using a 0 to 100 mm VAS scale, where 0 mm = no fatigue and 100 mm = worst possible fatigue. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

Duration of morning stiffness was defined as the time elapsed when participant woke up in the morning and was able to resume normal activities without stiffness in hours. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

Duration of morning stiffness was defined as the time elapsed when participant woke up in the morning and was able to resume normal activities without stiffness in hours. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

Duration of morning stiffness was defined as the time elapsed when participant woke up in the morning and was able to resume normal activities without stiffness in hours. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

Duration of morning stiffness was defined as the time elapsed when participant woke up in the morning and was able to resume normal activities without stiffness in hours. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.

Duration of morning stiffness was defined as the time elapsed when participant woke up in the morning and was able to resume normal activities without stiffness in hours. Propensity score method was used for analysis of the outcome measure.