Association of a P2Y12 Inhibitor Copayment Reduction Intervention With Persistence and Adherence With Other Secondary Prevention Medications

Importance: The Affordability and Real-World Antiplatelet Treatment Effectiveness After Myocardial Infarction Study (ARTEMIS) cluster-randomized trial found that copayment reduction for P2Y12 inhibitors improved 1-year patient persistence in taking that medication. Objective: To assess whether providing copayment reduction for P2Y12 inhibitors increases patient persistence in taking other secondary prevention cardiovascular medications. Design, Setting, and Participants: This post hoc analysis of the ARTEMIS trial includes data from 287 hospitals that enrolled patients between June 2015 and September 2016. Patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction were included. Data analysis occurred from May 2018 through August 2019. Interventions: Hospitals randomized to the intervention provided patients vouchers that waived copayments for P2Y12 inhibitors fills for 1 year. Hospitals randomized to usual care did not provide study vouchers. Main Outcomes and Measures: Persistence in taking β-blocker, statin, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker medications at 1 year, defined as the absence of a gap in medication supply of 30 or more days by pharmacy fill data in the intervention-arm (intent-to-treat) population. Results: A total of 131 hospitals (with 5109 patients) were randomized to the intervention, and 156 hospitals (with 3264 patients) randomized to the control group. Patients discharged from intervention hospitals had higher persistence in taking statins (2247 [46.1%] vs 1300 [41.9%]; adjusted odds ratio, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.00-1.24]), and β-blockers (2235 [47.6%] vs 1277 [42.5%]; odds ratio, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.10-1.38]), although the association was smaller than that seen for P2Y12 inhibitors (odds ratio, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.29-1.66]). Persistence in taking angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II-receptor blockers were also numerically higher among patients in the intervention arm than in the usual-care arm, but this was not significant after risk adjustment (1520 [43.9%] vs 847 [40.5%]; adjusted odds ratio, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.97-1.24]). Patients in the intervention arm reported greater financial burden associated with medication cost than the patients in the usual-care arm at baseline, but these differences were no longer significant at 1 year. Conclusions and Relevance: Reducing patient copayments for 1 medication class increased persistence not only to that therapy class but may also have modestly increased persistence to other post-myocardial infarction secondary prevention medications. These findings have important implications for the clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of medication cost-assistance programs. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02406677.