Nemonoxacin shows similar efficacy to moxifloxacin in hospitalized CAP patients

Photo by Logan Voss / Unsplash

Frontiers in Medicine Published April 29, 2026 Medically reviewed April 29, 2026 DOI ↗ By Dr. Julia Lee, PhD · Oncology, Genomics & Drug Development

Key Takeaway

Consider nemonoxacin as a potential cost-saving alternative to moxifloxacin for hospitalized CAP, but note the non-significant efficacy difference.

This retrospective cohort study evaluated the clinical efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of nemonoxacin injection compared with moxifloxacin injection in 196 patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia. The study was conducted in a hospital setting, and the primary outcome was clinical efficacy.

Clinical efficacy was 100.0% in the nemonoxacin group versus 97.8% in the moxifloxacin group, a difference that was not statistically significant (P=0.135). Adverse reaction rates were 1.9% for nemonoxacin and 1.1% for moxifloxacin (P=0.622). Total hospitalization cost was significantly lower with nemonoxacin (¥6,726.31 ± 1,849.50) compared with moxifloxacin (¥7,354.12 ± 2,477.16; P=0.044).

Safety data were limited; serious adverse events, discontinuations, and tolerability were not reported. The study's retrospective design, small sample size, and lack of reported funding or conflicts are notable limitations. The results provide an evidence-based reference for clinical decision-making, but the non-significant efficacy difference and higher cost savings with nemonoxacin should be interpreted cautiously. Larger prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Study Details

Study typeCohort

EvidenceLevel 3

PublishedApr 2026

View Original Abstract ↓

ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of nemonoxacin injection versus moxifloxacin injection in patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), providing an evidence-based reference for clinical decision-making.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted, enrolling 196 patients hospitalized with CAP between January 2024 and March 2025. Based on the treatment received, patients were allocated to a nemonoxacin group (n = 103) or a moxifloxacin group (n = 93). Clinical efficacy, inflammatory markers before and after treatment, and safety outcomes were compared between the groups. A cost-minimization analysis was used for the economic evaluation.ResultsBaseline characteristics did not differ significantly between groups (P > 0.05). Clinical efficacy was 100.0% in the nemonoxacin group versus 97.8% in the moxifloxacin group (P = 0.135). Adverse reaction rates were 1.9% and 1.1% for nemonoxacin and moxifloxacin, respectively (P = 0.622). Inflammatory markers decreased significantly after treatment in both groups, but the intergroup difference post-treatment was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). The total hospitalization cost was significantly lower in the nemonoxacin group (¥6,726.31 ± 1,849.50) than in the moxifloxacin group (¥7,354.12 ± 2,477.16) (P = 0.044), indicating superior cost-effectiveness for nemonoxacin. Sensitivity analysis supported the robustness of the economic finding.ConclusionNemonoxacin malate injection demonstrates clinical efficacy and safety comparable to moxifloxacin hydrochloride injection for CAP, while incurring significantly lower treatment costs, resulting in a more favorable economic profile.