Visual acuity for near (40 centimeters (cm)) target was measured in mesopic conditions using an eye chart. Mesopic condition was defined as low lighting 3.2 to 3.5 candelas per square meter (cd/m^2) measured at the target. Percentage of participants with 3 lines or more improvement from Baseline in mesopic, high-contrast DCNVA are reported.

Intent-to-treat (ITT) Population included all randomized participants. Missing data was imputed as non-responders.

Visual acuity for near (40 cm) target was measured in mesopic conditions using an eye chart. Mesopic condition was defined as low lighting 3.2 to 3.5 candelas per square meter measured at the target. Percentage of participants with 3 lines or more improvement from Baseline in mesopic, high-contrast DCNVA are reported.

ITT Population included all randomized participants. Missing data was imputed as non-responders.

Visual acuity for near (40 cm) target was measured in mesopic conditions using an eye chart. Mesopic condition was defined as low lighting 3.2 to 3.5 candelas per square meter measured at the target. Percentage of participants with 3 lines or more improvement from Baseline in mesopic, high-contrast DCNVA are reported.

ITT Population included all randomized participants. Overall number analyzed is the number of participants with data available for analyses at Baseline and the timepoint.

Visual acuity for near (40 cm) target was measured in mesopic conditions using an eye chart. Mesopic condition was defined as low lighting 3.2 to 3.5 cd/m^2 measured at the target. A positive change from Baseline indicates improvement in visual acuity. Mixed effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) was used for analyses.

ITT Population included all randomized participants. Overall number analyzed is the number of participants with data available for analyses.

Visual acuity for near (40 cm) target was measured in photopic conditions using an eye chart. Photopic condition was defined as high lighting ≥80 cd/m^2 measured at the target. Percentage of participants achieving 20/40 or better in photopic, high-contrast, binocular, DCNVA are reported.

ITT Population included all randomized participants. Overall number analyzed is the number of participants with data available for analyses at Baseline and the timepoint.

NVPTQ had 12 questions on 4 reading tasks(reading a paragraph from book, excerpts from an article in newspaper, portion of a nutrition label, and a section from restaurant menu). Participants completed specific reading tasks under mesopic conditions without any near-vision correction and answered 3 questions for each task, rating their vision-related reading ability as 0=I could not read any text due to problems seeing up close,1=poor,2=fair,3=good,4=very good,5=excellent;impact of squinting on performance as 0=No,I did not squint, 1=Yes,squinting helped me read some/all text, 2=Yes,but I still could not read any of the text; and satisfaction as 0=very dissatisfied to 4=very satisfied. The score based on vision related ability and impact of squinting=(Book testlet+Newspaper testlet+Menu testlet+Nutrition Label testlet)/(testlets with non-missing responses), total possible score of 0-5. Higher scores=better outcomes;positive change from Baseline=improved performance(reading ability).

ITT Population included all randomized participants. Overall number analyzed is the number of participants with data available for analyses. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis.

Visual acuity for intermediate (66 cm) target was measured in photopic conditions using an eye chart. Photopic condition was defined as high lighting ≥80 cd/m^2 measured at the target. A positive change from Baseline indicates improvement in visual acuity. MMRM was used for analyses.

ITT Population included all randomized participants. Overall number analyzed is the number of participants with data available for analyses.

Visual acuity for near (40cm) target was measured in mesopic conditions using an eye chart. Mesopic condition was defined as low lighting 3.2 to 3.5 cd/m^2measured at the target. Percentage of participants with 3 lines or more improvement from Baseline in mesopic, high-contrast, binocular DCNVA are reported.

ITT Population included all randomized participants. Overall number analyzed is the number of participants with data available for analyses at Baseline and the timepoint.

Visual acuity for near (40 cm) target was measured in mesopic conditions. Mesopic condition was defined as low lighting 3.2 to 3.5 cd/m^2 measured at the target. A positive change from Baseline indicates improvement in visual acuity. MMRM was used for analyses.

ITT Population included all randomized participants. Overall number analyzed is the number of participants with data available for analyses.

Visual acuity for near (40 cm) target was measured in mesopic conditions using an eye chart. Photopic condition was defined as high lighting ≥80 cd/m^2 measured at the target. Percentage of participants achieving 20/40 or better in photopic, high-contrast, binocular, DCNVA are reported.

ITT Population included all randomized participants. Overall number analyzed is the number of participants with data available for analyses at Baseline and the timepoint.

NVPTQ had 12 questions on 4 reading tasks(reading a paragraph from book, excerpts from an article in newspaper, portion of a nutrition label, and a section from restaurant menu). Participants completed specific reading tasks under mesopic conditions without any near-vision correction and answered 3 questions for each task, rating their vision-related reading ability as 0=I could not read any text due to problems seeing up close to 5=excellent; impact of squinting on performance as 0=No, I did not squint, 1=Yes, squinting helped me read some/all text, 2=Yes, but I still could not read any of the text; and satisfaction as 0=very dissatisfied,1=dissatisfied,2=neither satisfied nor dissatisfied,3=satisfied, 4=very satisfied. The score based on satisfaction items=(Book testlet+Newspaper testlet+Menu testlet+Nutrition Label testlet)/(testlets with non-missing responses) for a total possible score of 0 to 4. Higher scores=better outcomes; a positive change from Baseline=higher satisfaction.

ITT Population included all randomized participants. Overall number analyzed is the number of participants with data available for analyses. ANCOVA was used for analysis.

PICQ=20 questions about impact experienced by participants due to their problems over past 7 days.PICQ Coping domain had 8 items: 1:Normal-sized text,2:Small-sized text,3:Information on a computer,4:Information on a cell phone,5:Increase font size,6:Use glasses to read close,12:Hold reading materials farther out/closer,13:Squint to read. Each item had response categories:0=never to 4=all the time. Items 3, 4, 5, and 6 had additional response categories with values of 9/10 to indicate the question is not applicable to participant and were assigned missing values.PICQ Coping Score:(Item 1,2 Testlet+Item 3,4 Testlet+Item 5+Item 6+Item 12+Item 13)/non-missing responses to the 6 components of coping score where Items 1,2 Testlet=(Item1+Item2)/non-missing responses to Items 1,2;Items 3,4 Testlet=(Item3+Item4)/non-missing responses to Items 3, 4. Score ranges:0=to least amount of coping to 4=greatest amount of coping. Higher scores=poorer outcome; a negative change from Baseline=improvement.

ITT Population included all randomized participants. Overall number analyzed is the number of participants with data available for analyses. ANCOVA was used for analysis.

PICQ had 20 questions about impact experienced by participants due to their problems seeing up over past 7 days. PICQ Impact domain had 6 items: Item 9:Rely on others,15:rest eyes,16:Feel older,17:Feel self-conscious,19:Take longer to complete a task,20:Inconvenient. First 5 impacts items included response categories: 0=never to 4=all the time. Item 20 had response categories: 0=not at all to 4=extremely. Item 9 included an additional response category with a value of 9 to indicate question was not applicable to participant and the responses were assigned missing values. PICQ Impacts Score=[(Item9+Item15+Items16,17Testlet+Item19+Item20)/(nonmissing responses to 5 components of impacts score)] where Items 16,17 Testlet=(Item16+Item17)/non-missing responses to Items 16 and 17. PICQ Impact score ranges from 0 to 4; with 0=least amount of impacts to 4=greatest amount of impacts. Higher scores correspond to poorer outcomes. A negative change from Baseline=improvement.

ITT Population included all randomized participants. Overall number analyzed is the number of participants with data available for analyses. ANCOVA was used for analysis.