Diurnal variation in IOP has been well documented, starting with the work of Drance in the 1960s.
26 In subsequent work, investigators examined the 24-hour pattern of IOP variation and found that patients with glaucoma exhibit a decrease in IOP during the nocturnal period.
27 28 However, in these studies IOP was measured by Goldmann applanation tonometry with the subjects in the sitting position. Liu et al.
1 2 5 demonstrated that IOP measured in the habitual positions (sitting while awake and supine while asleep) was significantly higher during the nocturnal period than the diurnal period. When IOP was measured in the supine position only, patients with glaucoma showed a slight decrease in IOP at night,
5 whereas healthy subjects showed a slight increase.
1 2 In our study, we found a slight decrease in nocturnal IOP compared with diurnal IOP. Although we examined healthy subjects in our study, the results are consistent with previous reports, since we measured at only four time points and may not have captured the peak diurnal or peak nocturnal pressures. In addition, our subjects were mostly moderate myopes, and Liu et al.
3 demonstrated that myopes have a slightly lower nocturnal IOP when measured in the supine position.
The nocturnal elevation of IOP, or even slight decrease in nocturnal IOP, is a paradox considering the 50% or greater decrease in aqueous humor flow at night, which was consistent with previous results.
8 This paradox could be explained in two ways. First, as indicated by the Goldmann equation
(equation 2) , IOP can be influenced by outflow facility, aqueous humor flow rate, pressure-independent uveoscleral flow, and EVP. Nocturnal changes in any of these variables can determine IOP. A second set of possibilities is that nocturnal measurements of aqueous dynamics parameters do not accurately reflect the sleeping state.
Concerning the first set of possibilities, we examined outflow facility and found that there was a trend toward a small decrease during the nocturnal period, but the change was not statistically significant. It is possible that a real decrease occurs, but the difference between the diurnal and nocturnal measurements was smaller than the detection threshold for the sample size of this study. Nevertheless, the change would be too small to compensate for the change in aqueous flow under virtually all conditions, as indicated by our mathematical models based on the modified Goldmann equation
(Fig. 2) . We found that the uveoscleral flow fraction had to be 76% to 81% to reconcile the experimentally measured IOP, aqueous flow rate, and outflow facility. These values are substantially higher than any previously reported for experimentally measured or calculated uveoscleral outflow.
29 30 Therefore, nocturnal changes in outflow facility alone are not likely to account for the observed 24-hour IOP pattern.
Using our mathematical models, we also examined the possibility that changes in EVP could explain the observed IOP pattern. Measurements of EVP in humans are difficult and have poor reproducibility. Mean EVP in healthy human eyes has been reported between 7 and 14 mm Hg, with values between 8 and 11 mm Hg being most common.
31 Our mathematical models indicated that relatively modest increases in EVP from the diurnal to the nocturnal period could account for the observed circadian IOP pattern
(Fig. 3) . In addition, the calculated EVP for uveoscleral flow fractions between 10% and 75% during both the diurnal and nocturnal periods
(Fig. 4)was consistent with reported values. This indicates that the observed 24-hour IOP pattern could plausibly be the result of changes in EVP.
We also investigated the possibility that diurnal-to-nocturnal changes in uveoscleral flow fraction could produce the observed IOP pattern. However, the diurnal uveoscleral flow fraction had to be at least 36%, at which point a 100% drop from the diurnal-to-nocturnal period was necessary to produce the observed IOP pattern
(Fig. 5) . For a more reasonable 50% decrease in nocturnal flow fraction, a diurnal uveoscleral flow fraction of 47% would be required. This value is at the upper limit of reported values for uveoscleral flow calculated from measurements of IOP, aqueous flow, and EVP. Townsend and Brubaker
32 calculated a uveoscleral fraction of 36% in healthy subjects, assuming a fixed EVP of 8 mm Hg. Toris et al.
30 calculated a uveoscleral fraction of 54% in younger healthy subjects, and 46% in older healthy subjects, assuming that EVP remained unchanged under treatment with timolol, betaxolol, or acetazolamide. Results from our mathematical model are also significantly greater than reported values for directly measured uveoscleral flow.
29 Direct measurement of uveoscleral outflow in living humans has been reported only once in the literature. In a study by Bill and Phillips,
33 experiments were performed on patients in whom eyes were to be enucleated for choroidal melanoma. Radiolabeled albumin was perfused into the anterior chamber followed by a washout with inactive fluid. Uveoscleral flow was calculated based on the amount of radioactive material recovered in the ocular and episcleral tissues. This technique showed a uveoscleral flow fraction ranging from 0% to 27%, with a range of 4% to 14% in eyes without medical treatment. This result along with the results of our mathematical model suggest that it is possible, but unlikely, that a change in uveoscleral flow alone produces the observed 24-hour IOP pattern.
It is possible that multiple mechanisms are involved in the circadian IOP change. In two of our models, we assumed that the pressure-independent uveoscleral flow was a constant fraction of the total aqueous flow. If the uveoscleral flow were instead a constant fixed volume per unit of time, the effect would be an increase in uveoscleral fraction during the nocturnal period. If this occurred, an even greater change in EVP and/or outflow facility would be necessary to account for the diurnal-to-nocturnal change in IOP and aqueous flow rate. Conversely, if the uveoscleral flow fraction decreased at night, the necessary change in EVP and/or facility would be less.
A second set of possible explanations for the observed circadian IOP and aqueous flow patterns is that the experimental measurements in the nocturnal period do not accurately reflect the sleeping state. Of the three parameters measured directly in this study, aqueous flow measurements are most likely to reflect accurately both the sleeping and waking states. In our protocol, mid-nocturnal fluorophotometry scans were performed at the beginning and end of a 2-hour interval, during which subjects were sleeping. The calculated aqueous flow rate is an average for this time interval and not a measurement of instantaneous flow rate at the time of the scans themselves. Therefore, the aqueous flow rate calculations reflect the sleeping state and our results are consistent with previous studies of nocturnal aqueous flow.
8 15 Furthermore, previous studies have indicated that the decrease in aqueous production at night is related to circadian rhythm and not body position or eyelid closure, with nocturnal decreases in aqueous flow occurring even in awake, sleep-deprived subjects.
34
The question of whether nocturnal IOP and outflow facility measurements reflect the sleeping state is more complicated. Both of these are essentially instantaneous measurements performed at night in the waking state with the assumption that the measured values are representative of the sleeping state. Moderate light exposure at night does not appear to affect the nocturnal IOP pattern.
25 However, the process of waking does appear to affect IOP, with previous studies reporting significant IOP elevations on waking with a rapid decay over several minutes to a baseline level.
35 It is unclear whether this elevation is representative of true sleeping IOP, or a transient change that results from the process of waking. In our study, IOP measurements occurred after aqueous flow measurements and were followed by facility measurements. The consequence of this protocol is that the subjects were awake for approximately 5 to 10 minutes before IOP measurements. This amount of time would be sufficient for a return to baseline in most subjects,
35 but the question of whether this is a “sleeping” baseline or an “awake” baseline cannot be answered at this time. Some biological parameters will remain entrained to the circadian rhythm, despite sleep disturbance. This situation holds true for aqueous flow, as well as production of neuroendocrine markers such as thyroid-stimulating hormone and cortisol, which require at least 2 days to reset to a new circadian rhythm.
36 In contrast, other biological parameters, such as blood pressure, are influenced more by the sleeping and waking states than is the circadian rhythm.
37 Determining whether IOP and outflow facility are entrained to the circadian rhythm or change rapidly from the sleeping state to the waking state will require the development of technology to measure these parameters in sleeping subjects.
Based on the data in the present study, the most likely explanation for the observed 24-hour IOP pattern is circadian variations in EVP or a combination of factors. This suggests that EVP may be a critical parameter for the control of nocturnal IOP elevation. However, no current glaucoma medications are known to influence EVP.
38 Future therapies may have to target this parameter if optimum control of nocturnal IOP is to be achieved. Further work is necessary to elucidate fully the nature of circadian variation of aqueous humor dynamics. Such work should involve investigating whether the circadian patterns of aqueous dynamics in this study are maintained in older healthy subjects, as well as patients with glaucoma. Subsequent studies should also measure diurnal-to-nocturnal changes in EVP, in addition to IOP, aqueous flow rate, and outflow facility.