Safety and Efficacy of OMS302 in Subjects Undergoing Unilateral Cataract Extraction With Lens Replacement (CELR)

Pupil diameter from surgical baseline (immediately prior to surgical incision) to the end of the surgical procedure (wound closure) was summarized using descriptive statistics by treatment group and time point. Repeated measures analyses of variance were used to test for differences in the maintenance of mydriasis. The repeated measures model included change from baseline pupil diameter as the response variable and treatment (OMS302, ketorolac tromethamine, and vehicle), time point (as a categorical variable) and the stratification factor lens opacities classification system II (LOCS II) grade as predictor variables. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) approach with an AR(1) working-correlation structure was used.

For the primary analysis of this endpoint, only the results on the day of operation at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10-12 hours were utilized. The VAS scores (where 0 = no pain and 100 = worst possible pain) were summarized by treatment group and time point. Repeated measures analyses of variance were used to test for differences in postoperative ocular pain. The repeated measures model included VAS pain score as the response variable and treatment (OMS302, phenylephrine hydrochloride (PE), and vehicle), time point (as a categorical variable) and the stratification factor LOCS II grade as predictor variables. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) approach with an AR(1) working correlation structure was used.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

The ocular symptom outcomes were based on Ocular Pain and Symptoms Numerical Ordinal Scale (Numerical Rating System - NRS) at each time point for each assessment (tearing, photophobia, eye discharge, itching, foreign body sensation, and haziness). Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

Best-Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was summarized by the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) visual acuity log score. For subjects without a score due to inability to read the ETDRS chart, the log score was imputed as 1.6 for the purpose of treatment comparisons. Subjects without a score because the manifest refraction was not completed were excluded from the analysis. Treatment comparisons for BCVA were performed by pairwise Wilcoxon tests.

Best-Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was summarized by the ETDRS visual acuity log score. For subjects without a score due to inability to read the ETDRS chart, the log score was imputed as 1.6 for the purpose of treatment comparisons. Subjects without a score because the manifest refraction was not completed were excluded from the analysis. Treatment comparisons for BCVA were performed by pairwise Wilcoxon tests.

Best-Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was summarized by the ETDRS visual acuity log score. For subjects without a score due to inability to read the ETDRS chart, the log score was imputed as 1.6 for the purpose of treatment comparisons. Subjects without a score because the manifest refraction was not completed were excluded from the analysis. Treatment comparisons for BCVA were performed by pairwise Wilcoxon tests.

Best-Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was summarized by the ETDRS visual acuity log score. For subjects without a score due to inability to read the ETDRS chart, the log score was imputed as 1.6 for the purpose of treatment comparisons. Subjects without a score because the manifest refraction was not completed were excluded from the analysis. Treatment comparisons for BCVA were performed by pairwise Wilcoxon tests.

Best-Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was summarized by the ETDRS visual acuity log score. For subjects without a score due to inability to read the ETDRS chart, the log score was imputed as 1.6 for the purpose of treatment comparisons. Subjects without a score because the manifest refraction was not completed were excluded from the analysis. Treatment comparisons for BCVA were performed by pairwise Wilcoxon tests.

Best-Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was summarized by the ETDRS visual acuity log score. For subjects without a score due to inability to read the ETDRS chart, the log score was imputed as 1.6 for the purpose of treatment comparisons. Subjects without a score because the manifest refraction was not completed were excluded from the analysis. Treatment comparisons for BCVA were performed by pairwise Wilcoxon tests.

Postoperative inflammation as measured using the Summed Ocular Inflammation Score (SOIS), summarized by treatment arm and time point. Ocular inflammation was evaluated by measuring the anterior chamber cell count and flare using a slit lamp biomicroscope. SOIS was calculated by adding the average of subject's anterior chamber cells and flare grades. The minimum SOIS was 0 (indicating absence of inflammation), whereas the maximum SOIS was 8. Grading was as follows: Anterior Chamber Cells: Grade None = 0/no cells; Grade Mild = +1/1-5 cells; Grade Moderate = +2/6-15 cells; Grade Severe = +3/16-30 cells; Grade Very Severe = +4/>30 cells. Anterior Chamber Flare: Grade None = 0/no Tyndall effect; Grade Mild = +1/barely discernable Tyndall effect; Grade Moderate = +2/moderately intense Tyndall beam in anterior chamber; Grade Severe = +3/severely intense Tyndall beam; Grade Very Severe = +4/very severely intense Tyndall beam with a white and milky appearance to the aqueous

TPostoperative inflammation as measured using the Summed Ocular Inflammation Score (SOIS), summarized by treatment arm and time point. Ocular inflammation was evaluated by measuring the anterior chamber cell count and flare using a slit lamp biomicroscope. SOIS was calculated by adding the average of subject's anterior chamber cells and flare grades. The minimum SOIS was 0 (indicating absence of inflammation), whereas the maximum SOIS was 8. Grading was as follows: Anterior Chamber Cells: Grade None = 0/no cells; Grade Mild = +1/1-5 cells; Grade Moderate = +2/6-15 cells; Grade Severe = +3/16-30 cells; Grade Very Severe = +4/>30 cells. Anterior Chamber Flare: Grade None = 0/no Tyndall effect; Grade Mild = +1/barely discernable Tyndall effect; Grade Moderate = +2/moderately intense Tyndall beam in anterior chamber; Grade Severe = +3/severely intense Tyndall beam; Grade Very Severe = +4/very severely intense Tyndall beam with a white and milky appearance to the aqueous

Postoperative inflammation as measured using the Summed Ocular Inflammation Score (SOIS), summarized by treatment arm and time point. Ocular inflammation was evaluated by measuring the anterior chamber cell count and flare using a slit lamp biomicroscope. SOIS was calculated by adding the average of subject's anterior chamber cells and flare grades. The minimum SOIS was 0 (indicating absence of inflammation), whereas the maximum SOIS was 8. Grading was as follows: Anterior Chamber Cells: Grade None = 0/no cells; Grade Mild = +1/1-5 cells; Grade Moderate = +2/6-15 cells; Grade Severe = +3/16-30 cells; Grade Very Severe = +4/>30 cells. Anterior Chamber Flare: Grade None = 0/no Tyndall effect; Grade Mild = +1/barely discernable Tyndall effect; Grade Moderate = +2/moderately intense Tyndall beam in anterior chamber; Grade Severe = +3/severely intense Tyndall beam; Grade Very Severe = +4/very severely intense Tyndall beam with a white and milky appearance to the aqueous

Postoperative inflammation as measured using the Summed Ocular Inflammation Score (SOIS), summarized by treatment arm and time point. Ocular inflammation was evaluated by measuring the anterior chamber cell count and flare using a slit lamp biomicroscope. SOIS was calculated by adding the average of subject's anterior chamber cells and flare grades. The minimum SOIS was 0 (indicating absence of inflammation), whereas the maximum SOIS was 8. Grading was as follows: Anterior Chamber Cells: Grade None = 0/no cells; Grade Mild = +1/1-5 cells; Grade Moderate = +2/6-15 cells; Grade Severe = +3/16-30 cells; Grade Very Severe = +4/>30 cells. Anterior Chamber Flare: Grade None = 0/no Tyndall effect; Grade Mild = +1/barely discernable Tyndall effect; Grade Moderate = +2/moderately intense Tyndall beam in anterior chamber; Grade Severe = +3/severely intense Tyndall beam; Grade Very Severe = +4/very severely intense Tyndall beam with a white and milky appearance to the aqueous

Postoperative inflammation as measured using the Summed Ocular Inflammation Score (SOIS), summarized by treatment arm and time point. Ocular inflammation was evaluated by measuring the anterior chamber cell count and flare using a slit lamp biomicroscope. SOIS was calculated by adding the average of subject's anterior chamber cells and flare grades. The minimum SOIS was 0 (indicating absence of inflammation), whereas the maximum SOIS was 8. Grading was as follows: Anterior Chamber Cells: Grade None = 0/no cells; Grade Mild = +1/1-5 cells; Grade Moderate = +2/6-15 cells; Grade Severe = +3/16-30 cells; Grade Very Severe = +4/>30 cells. Anterior Chamber Flare: Grade None = 0/no Tyndall effect; Grade Mild = +1/barely discernable Tyndall effect; Grade Moderate = +2/moderately intense Tyndall beam in anterior chamber; Grade Severe = +3/severely intense Tyndall beam; Grade Very Severe = +4/very severely intense Tyndall beam with a white and milky appearance to the aqueous

Postoperative inflammation as measured using the Summed Ocular Inflammation Score (SOIS), summarized by treatment arm and time point. Ocular inflammation was evaluated by measuring the anterior chamber cell count and flare using a slit lamp biomicroscope. SOIS was calculated by adding the average of subject's anterior chamber cells and flare grades. The minimum SOIS was 0 (indicating absence of inflammation), whereas the maximum SOIS was 8. Grading was as follows: Anterior Chamber Cells: Grade None = 0/no cells; Grade Mild = +1/1-5 cells; Grade Moderate = +2/6-15 cells; Grade Severe = +3/16-30 cells; Grade Very Severe = +4/>30 cells. Anterior Chamber Flare: Grade None = 0/no Tyndall effect; Grade Mild = +1/barely discernable Tyndall effect; Grade Moderate = +2/moderately intense Tyndall beam in anterior chamber; Grade Severe = +3/severely intense Tyndall beam; Grade Very Severe = +4/very severely intense Tyndall beam with a white and milky appearance to the aqueous

Postoperative inflammation as measured using the Summed Ocular Inflammation Score (SOIS), summarized by treatment arm and time point. Ocular inflammation was evaluated by measuring the anterior chamber cell count and flare using a slit lamp biomicroscope. SOIS was calculated by adding the average of subject's anterior chamber cells and flare grades. The minimum SOIS was 0 (indicating absence of inflammation), whereas the maximum SOIS was 8. Grading was as follows: Anterior Chamber Cells: Grade None = 0/no cells; Grade Mild = +1/1-5 cells; Grade Moderate = +2/6-15 cells; Grade Severe = +3/16-30 cells; Grade Very Severe = +4/>30 cells. Anterior Chamber Flare: Grade None = 0/no Tyndall effect; Grade Mild = +1/barely discernable Tyndall effect; Grade Moderate = +2/moderately intense Tyndall beam in anterior chamber; Grade Severe = +3/severely intense Tyndall beam; Grade Very Severe = +4/very severely intense Tyndall beam with a white and milky appearance to the aqueous

Number of subjects with Summed Ocular Inflammation Score (SOIS) = 0, summarized by treatment arm and time point. Ocular inflammation was evaluated by measuring the anterior chamber cell count and flare using a slit lamp biomicroscope. SOIS was calculated by adding the average of subject's anterior chamber cells and flare grades. The minimum SOIS was 0 (indicating absence of inflammation), whereas the maximum SOIS was 8. Grading was as follows: Anterior Chamber Cells: Grade None = 0/no cells; Grade Mild = +1/1-5 cells; Grade Moderate = +2/6-15 cells; Grade Severe = +3/16-30 cells; Grade Very Severe = +4/>30 cells. Anterior Chamber Flare: Grade None = 0/no Tyndall effect; Grade Mild = +1/barely discernable Tyndall effect; Grade Moderate = +2/moderately intense Tyndall beam in anterior chamber; Grade Severe = +3/severely intense Tyndall beam; Grade Very Severe = +4/very severely intense Tyndall beam with a white and milky appearance to the aqueous

Number of subjects with Summed Ocular Inflammation Score (SOIS) = 0, summarized by treatment arm and time point. Ocular inflammation was evaluated by measuring the anterior chamber cell count and flare using a slit lamp biomicroscope. SOIS was calculated by adding the average of subject's anterior chamber cells and flare grades. The minimum SOIS was 0 (indicating absence of inflammation), whereas the maximum SOIS was 8. Grading was as follows: Anterior Chamber Cells: Grade None = 0/no cells; Grade Mild = +1/1-5 cells; Grade Moderate = +2/6-15 cells; Grade Severe = +3/16-30 cells; Grade Very Severe = +4/>30 cells. Anterior Chamber Flare: Grade None = 0/no Tyndall effect; Grade Mild = +1/barely discernable Tyndall effect; Grade Moderate = +2/moderately intense Tyndall beam in anterior chamber; Grade Severe = +3/severely intense Tyndall beam; Grade Very Severe = +4/very severely intense Tyndall beam with a white and milky appearance to the aqueous

Number of subjects with Summed Ocular Inflammation Score (SOIS) = 0, summarized by treatment arm and time point. Ocular inflammation was evaluated by measuring the anterior chamber cell count and flare using a slit lamp biomicroscope. SOIS was calculated by adding the average of subject's anterior chamber cells and flare grades. The minimum SOIS was 0 (indicating absence of inflammation), whereas the maximum SOIS was 8. Grading was as follows: Anterior Chamber Cells: Grade None = 0/no cells; Grade Mild = +1/1-5 cells; Grade Moderate = +2/6-15 cells; Grade Severe = +3/16-30 cells; Grade Very Severe = +4/>30 cells. Anterior Chamber Flare: Grade None = 0/no Tyndall effect; Grade Mild = +1/barely discernable Tyndall effect; Grade Moderate = +2/moderately intense Tyndall beam in anterior chamber; Grade Severe = +3/severely intense Tyndall beam; Grade Very Severe = +4/very severely intense Tyndall beam with a white and milky appearance to the aqueous

Number of subjects with Summed Ocular Inflammation Score (SOIS) = 0, summarized by treatment arm and time point. Ocular inflammation was evaluated by measuring the anterior chamber cell count and flare using a slit lamp biomicroscope. SOIS was calculated by adding the average of subject's anterior chamber cells and flare grades. The minimum SOIS was 0 (indicating absence of inflammation), whereas the maximum SOIS was 8. Grading was as follows: Anterior Chamber Cells: Grade None = 0/no cells; Grade Mild = +1/1-5 cells; Grade Moderate = +2/6-15 cells; Grade Severe = +3/16-30 cells; Grade Very Severe = +4/>30 cells. Anterior Chamber Flare: Grade None = 0/no Tyndall effect; Grade Mild = +1/barely discernable Tyndall effect; Grade Moderate = +2/moderately intense Tyndall beam in anterior chamber; Grade Severe = +3/severely intense Tyndall beam; Grade Very Severe = +4/very severely intense Tyndall beam with a white and milky appearance to the aqueous

Number of subjects with Summed Ocular Inflammation Score (SOIS) = 0, summarized by treatment arm and time point. Ocular inflammation was evaluated by measuring the anterior chamber cell count and flare using a slit lamp biomicroscope. SOIS was calculated by adding the average of subject's anterior chamber cells and flare grades. The minimum SOIS was 0 (indicating absence of inflammation), whereas the maximum SOIS was 8. Grading was as follows: Anterior Chamber Cells: Grade None = 0/no cells; Grade Mild = +1/1-5 cells; Grade Moderate = +2/6-15 cells; Grade Severe = +3/16-30 cells; Grade Very Severe = +4/>30 cells. Anterior Chamber Flare: Grade None = 0/no Tyndall effect; Grade Mild = +1/barely discernable Tyndall effect; Grade Moderate = +2/moderately intense Tyndall beam in anterior chamber; Grade Severe = +3/severely intense Tyndall beam; Grade Very Severe = +4/very severely intense Tyndall beam with a white and milky appearance to the aqueous

Number of subjects with Summed Ocular Inflammation Score (SOIS) = 0, summarized by treatment arm and time point. Ocular inflammation was evaluated by measuring the anterior chamber cell count and flare using a slit lamp biomicroscope. SOIS was calculated by adding the average of subject's anterior chamber cells and flare grades. The minimum SOIS was 0 (indicating absence of inflammation), whereas the maximum SOIS was 8. Grading was as follows: Anterior Chamber Cells: Grade None = 0/no cells; Grade Mild = +1/1-5 cells; Grade Moderate = +2/6-15 cells; Grade Severe = +3/16-30 cells; Grade Very Severe = +4/>30 cells. Anterior Chamber Flare: Grade None = 0/no Tyndall effect; Grade Mild = +1/barely discernable Tyndall effect; Grade Moderate = +2/moderately intense Tyndall beam in anterior chamber; Grade Severe = +3/severely intense Tyndall beam; Grade Very Severe = +4/very severely intense Tyndall beam with a white and milky appearance to the aqueous

Number of subjects with Summed Ocular Inflammation Score (SOIS) = 0, summarized by treatment arm and time point. Ocular inflammation was evaluated by measuring the anterior chamber cell count and flare using a slit lamp biomicroscope. SOIS was calculated by adding the average of subject's anterior chamber cells and flare grades. The minimum SOIS was 0 (indicating absence of inflammation), whereas the maximum SOIS was 8. Grading was as follows: Anterior Chamber Cells: Grade None = 0/no cells; Grade Mild = +1/1-5 cells; Grade Moderate = +2/6-15 cells; Grade Severe = +3/16-30 cells; Grade Very Severe = +4/>30 cells. Anterior Chamber Flare: Grade None = 0/no Tyndall effect; Grade Mild = +1/barely discernable Tyndall effect; Grade Moderate = +2/moderately intense Tyndall beam in anterior chamber; Grade Severe = +3/severely intense Tyndall beam; Grade Very Severe = +4/very severely intense Tyndall beam with a white and milky appearance to the aqueous

The mean anterior chamber cell count was calculated as the average of the two anterior chamber cell counts. If a cell count was indicated as > 30, it was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons which was performed using pairwise Wilcoxon tests.

The mean anterior chamber cell count was calculated as the average of the two anterior chamber cell counts. If a cell count was indicated as > 30, it was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons which was performed using pairwise Wilcoxon tests.

The mean anterior chamber cell count was calculated as the average of the two anterior chamber cell counts. If a cell count was indicated as > 30, it was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons which was performed using pairwise Wilcoxon tests.

The mean anterior chamber cell count was calculated as the average of the two anterior chamber cell counts. If a cell count was indicated as > 30, it was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons which was performed using pairwise Wilcoxon tests.

The mean anterior chamber cell count was calculated as the average of the two anterior chamber cell counts. If a cell count was indicated as > 30, it was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons which was performed using pairwise Wilcoxon tests.

The mean anterior chamber cell count was calculated as the average of the two anterior chamber cell counts. If a cell count was indicated as > 30, it was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons which was performed using pairwise Wilcoxon tests.

VAS pain scores (where 0 = no pain and 100 = worst possible pain) after the day of surgery were summarized.

Ophthalmic anti-inflammatory medications were identified by reviewing concomitant medications. Subject incidence of ophthalmic anti-inflammatory medication use by post-surgery day was presented. Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

Ocular pain medications were identified by reviewing concomitant medications. Subject incidence of ocular pain medication use at day 1 and post day 1 were presented. Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.

Ocular pain medications were identified by reviewing concomitant medications. Subject incidence of ocular pain medication use at day 1 and post day 1 were presented. Treatment comparisons were performed using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factor LOCS II grade.