Eczema Creams for Infants: What the Research Says

No trial has shown one type of moisturiser to beat the others for childhood eczema, and that isn't a dodge. The one trial that compared the four main types head to head found no significant difference between them, which is not the same as proving they are equal. It is also worth knowing up front that it enrolled children from six months, with a median age of four, so it is not a newborn study.

If you have typed best lotion for infant eczema into a search bar, you'll have met a hundred confident answers and no two the same. This article is about the evidence underneath them: what has been tested, on whom, and where the honest position is that nobody knows yet.

It doesn't work through an ingredient list, and it doesn't set out the daily routine, which the baby eczema guide covers in full.

Is there a best cream or lotion for infant eczema?

No single cream or lotion has been shown to work better than the others. A UK trial randomised 550 children with eczema to a lotion, a cream, a gel or an ointment for sixteen weeks and found no difference in eczema severity between the four. The one that works is the one a family will keep using.

That trial is the Best Emollients for Eczema study, run across 77 general practices in England and published in The Lancet Child and Adolescent Health in 2022. Its authors ran it because, as they put it, to their knowledge there were no trials comparing the emollients commonly used for childhood eczema. Children aged six months to twelve years used one assigned format as their main leave-on moisturiser, with parents scoring severity every week.

Across sixteen weeks the four groups came out level, and side effects were much the same. The one difference the researchers did find was stinging, reported in 9 per cent of the ointment group against 20 per cent with lotions, 17 per cent with creams and 19 per cent with gels. Their own conclusion was that users need to be able to choose from a range of emollients to find one they are more likely to use effectively.

What that trial doesn't tell you about a newborn

Scope is where reporting of this study usually goes wrong. The children enrolled were aged six months to twelve years, with a median age of four, so the trial says nothing directly about a baby of a few weeks or a few months. That is the age most parents are asking about.

Two other limits matter. The products were prescribed through English general practice, so the brands aren't the ones on an Australian shelf, and 86 per cent of participants were recorded as White. The outcome was parent-reported severity over sixteen weeks, not a longer-run measure.

A follow-up analysis compared parent satisfaction across the four formats, using data on 378 of the families, 68.7 per cent of those randomised. Ointments came last by a clear margin, and lotions, creams and gels did not separate from one another in the pairwise comparisons. The authors' own summary is that lotions and gels were favoured over creams and ointments. Satisfaction tracked with how much moisturiser families reported using, which is why format still matters even when effectiveness doesn't separate.

The prevention question, where the evidence turned around

The other body of research parents run into is about prevention, and the direction of travel has reversed since 2014. That history is worth knowing, because much of what still circulates online was written before it changed.

Two small trials in 2014 pointed one way. The larger enrolled 124 high-risk newborns across the United States and the United Kingdom, asked one group's parents to apply full-body emollient daily from within three weeks of birth, and reported a 50 per cent relative reduction in atopic dermatitis at six months. It prespecified two primary outcomes, though, and one of them was feasibility: whether families would agree to be randomised at all. The 50 per cent figure was its primary clinical outcome, which is where a research question starts rather than where it finishes.

Two much larger trials reported in The Lancet in 2020 and did not confirm it. BEEP randomised 1,394 UK newborns with a family history of atopic disease to daily whole-body emollient through the first year, or to standard skin-care advice alone. At age two, eczema was present in 23 per cent of the emollient group and 25 per cent of controls, a difference well inside chance. Skin infections ran higher in the emollient group, at a mean of 0.23 per child in the first year against 0.15, an adjusted incidence rate ratio of 1.55 whose confidence interval does not include one.

PreventADALL, published alongside it, enrolled 2,397 infants in Norway and Sweden. Two differences from BEEP matter. It recruited from the general infant population rather than a high-risk group, and its skin intervention was bath additives plus a facial cream rather than whole-body leave-on moisturiser. Atopic dermatitis at twelve months was found in 11 per cent of the skin-intervention group and 8 per cent of the no-intervention group.

The risk difference was 3.1 per cent, with a 95 per cent confidence interval running from minus 0.3 to 6.5, which crosses zero: the same reason BEEP's result is described above as a difference well inside chance applies here, and it applies whichever way the point estimate leans. The lowest rate of all, 5 per cent, was in the arm that combined the skin intervention with early food introduction, and the trial identified no safety concerns.

BEEP's five-year follow-up, published in Allergy in 2023, tracked the same children to age five. A clinical diagnosis of atopic dermatitis between twelve and sixty months was reported for 31 per cent of the emollient group and 28 per cent of controls, and doctor-diagnosed food allergy by five years was 15 per cent against 14 per cent. The authors concluded that daily emollient in the first year does not prevent atopic dermatitis, food allergy, asthma or hay fever.

The Cochrane review pulled the field together in 2022. It identified 33 randomised trials covering 25,827 participants, and its conclusions rest on the 11 of those, randomising 5,217 participants, that could be pooled. It concluded that skin care interventions such as emollients during the first year of life in healthy infants are probably not effective for preventing eczema, may increase the risk of food allergy, and probably increase the risk of skin infection. The reviewers graded that evidence low to moderate certainty, which is their own caution rather than a gloss on it.

One distinction carries all the weight here, and it is easy to lose. Every prevention trial above studied well babies who did not have eczema yet. None of it changes what the Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne guideline says for a baby who does have eczema: apply moisturiser generously top-to-toe twice a day, including after bathing, and reapply whenever the skin feels dry.

Where the evidence is strongest, and it isn't the moisturiser

The firmest ground in infant eczema isn't a cream you choose off a shelf. It's the prescription your GP writes for a flare.

The RCH clinical practice guideline states that topical steroids are safe and effective when used correctly, and are essential to the treatment of eczema flares. It is equally direct about their use: there is no requirement to use steroids sparingly or to take regular breaks during a flare, and steroids should be applied generously followed by moisturiser. The Australasian College of Dermatologists consensus statement, published in 2015, lands in the same place, calling topical corticosteroids the cornerstone treatment of atopic eczema in children.

That consensus statement is blunt about why a section like this exists. It records that topical corticosteroids are often underused by parents because of corticosteroid phobia and unfounded concerns about adverse effects, and that this has led to extended and unnecessary exacerbations of eczema for children. Its position on the feared harms is that appropriate use as per guidelines does not cause atrophy, hypopigmentation, hypertrichosis, osteoporosis, purpura or telangiectasia.

The same statement sets out what it does record, in the sentence that follows: in rare cases, prolonged and excessive use of potent topical corticosteroids has contributed to striae, short-term hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis alteration and ophthalmological disease, and their use can also exacerbate periorificial rosacea. Both halves are that consensus statement's, and quoting only the reassuring one would be the same selective reading it exists to correct. ASCIA puts the practical version the same way: undertreatment of eczema can lead to poor symptom control and eczema flares.

Honesty about evidence cuts both ways, so here is the limit on that. An umbrella review published in BMJ Open in 2021 gathered 38 systematic reviews of topical corticosteroid safety. It found no evidence of harm when they were used intermittently as required for flares, and it also recorded that 34 of the 38 reviews were of low or critically low quality, that treatment and follow-up usually ran two to four weeks, and that long-term safety data were limited. That is a strong short-term safety picture with a thinner long-term one, and it reads better said plainly than rounded up.

Where the evidence is thin

Three things parents get told confidently rest on much less than the sections above.

Ingredient claims. The Best Emollients for Eczema trial compared formats, not ingredients and not brands. No trial in this set has put one moisturising ingredient against another in babies with eczema, so a front-of-pack ingredient claim isn't being weighed against anything.
Bath additives. The BATHE trial randomised 483 children aged one to eleven across UK general practice to emollient bath additives or to none, alongside standard care including leave-on moisturisers, and found no meaningful benefit from the additives. Children under one weren't in it, so it doesn't answer the question for a baby.
Plant oils. RCH's eczema guideline advises avoiding moisturisers containing plant or food products, including vegetable, nut and olive oils, for eczema care, on the basis that these may disrupt the skin barrier and sensitise the skin. Danby and colleagues tested two of those oils directly: on the forearms of 19 adult volunteers in two cohorts, one applying olive oil for five weeks and the other applying olive oil and sunflower seed oil for four. The authors' own conclusion was that olive oil should be discouraged for dry skin and infant massage, and that the findings challenge the belief that all natural oils are good for skin. They framed the work as an implication for newborn skin care rather than a test of it. Note the scope: this is eczema-care guidance. The RCH nappy rash guideline names plant and food products among the irritants that can contribute, so raise any oil-containing product with your GP or child health nurse.

Three questions worth asking about any eczema cream claim

The habit that survives this whole article is a small one. When a claim about an eczema cream turns up, three questions sort most of them out.

Who was studied? BEE enrolled children from six months to twelve years, BEEP enrolled high-risk newborns with no eczema yet, and the Cochrane review covered healthy infants without eczema. A result in one of those groups doesn't carry across to another, and none of them is a six-week-old who already has eczema.
What was it compared with? BEE compared four formats against each other, and BEEP and PreventADALL compared moisturising against not moisturising. A claim with no comparator inside it isn't reporting a comparison, whatever it sounds like.
How long, and measured how? BEE ran sixteen weeks on weekly parent-reported severity scores, BEEP's primary outcome was an eczema diagnosis at age two, and the umbrella review found the steroid-safety trials underneath it usually ran two to four weeks. Short trials answer short questions.

None of that tells you which tub to buy. It does tell you which confident sentences to put back down, which is most of the work.

When to get help: 000, hospital or GP

Book a GP appointment for a first assessment of suspected eczema, and for the home eczema management plan the RCH guideline says every child with eczema should be given. Take the products you're already using, and a rough idea of how fast you're getting through them, because the guideline asks clinicians to record the volume of creams used.

RCH also lists the situations where a GP should consider involving the local paediatric team, and several are worth recognising at home. They include moderate or severe eczema that isn't responding after two weeks or more of correct treatment, severe eczema in a child under twelve months, and poor feeding, poor sleep or failure to thrive.

Signs of infection need medical assessment, not a different cream. The guideline describes bacterial infection as itchy yellowish crusts, weeping, pustules and folliculitis, with fever and malaise as systemic features, and eczema herpeticum as painful clustered blisters and punched-out erosions. Eczema herpeticum and severe bacterial skin infections are the first entry on that same paediatric-team list.

RCH says eczema herpeticum requires prompt initiation of antiviral treatment, that intravenous antiviral treatment may be required in severe infections, and that urgent ophthalmology review is required where the infection affects the area around the eye.

Some signs need an ambulance or the emergency department straight away. Some need a doctor as soon as possible, and some a GP today. Others are worth a GP visit this week. If you're not sure which group your baby fits, treat it as the more urgent one, and call 000 if your baby seems very unwell.

Call 000 or go straight to the emergency department

Your baby is floppy, drowsy or hard to wake, not feeding, or seems very unwell.
Your baby is having trouble breathing, is grunting, or has pauses in their breathing.
Blue or grey lips, tongue or face, or skin on your baby's body that looks pale, blotchy, grey or blue. Don't wait to see whether warming helps. On darker skin the change can look grey or white, so check the lips, tongue and nail beds.
A seizure.
A fever with drowsiness, trouble breathing, a stiff neck, a seizure, blue or very pale skin, or a rash that doesn't fade when pressed.
A rash that doesn't fade when you press the side of a clear glass against it, and it is spreading, or your baby has a fever or seems unwell. Under three months, call 000 too if it looks like purple bruises.
Your baby is under one month old and their back or tummy feels cold, or their temperature is below 36.5°C taken under the arm, even if they seem otherwise well.
You feel something is seriously wrong.

Go to the emergency department now

Fever in a young baby goes by age, not by how the skin looks. A temperature of 38°C or more, taken under the arm with a digital thermometer, counts as a fever.

A fever of 38°C or higher in a baby under three months, with or without other symptoms, even if they seem otherwise well. healthdirect advises taking a baby under 3 months with a fever to the nearest hospital emergency department immediately. Do not wait for a GP appointment.
If your baby has eczema and gets a cluster of small blisters or punched-out sores, especially with a fever, go to the emergency department straight away. This can be eczema herpeticum, a herpes-virus infection of the skin. Do not wait for a GP appointment. If your baby is floppy, drowsy, hard to wake or seems very unwell, call 000. Don't let anyone with a cold sore kiss your baby.
Any skin infection, blisters or sores close to the eye.
Rapidly spreading redness with a fever.
A severe, widespread flare in a baby under three months old.
A rash that doesn't fade when you press the side of a clear glass against it, in a baby under three months, even with no fever.
From three months, a purple rash that looks like a bruise and doesn't fade, in a baby who seems well.

See a doctor as soon as possible

That means a doctor within hours, the same day, not a routine booking. If no GP can see your baby within hours, go to the emergency department.

Your baby is unsettled, feeding poorly or not sleeping because of the eczema.
Your baby is three months or older and has a fever with worsening eczema, but is otherwise well. Under three months, a fever means the emergency department now.
A rash that doesn't fade when you press the side of a clear glass against it, in a baby three months or older who has no fever and seems well.

See a GP today

The skin is weeping, crusted or has pus-filled spots, which can mean a bacterial infection.

Book a GP visit this week

This is the first time you've seen what looks like eczema, or you need the home eczema management plan described above.
Moderate or severe eczema isn't responding after two weeks or more of correct treatment.
You need a prescription, or a repeat, for a topical corticosteroid.

If you aren't sure how urgent something is, healthdirect's helpline on 1800 022 222 has a registered nurse available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. If your baby seems very unwell, don't wait for the call: ring 000.

If the rash sits only in the nappy area, it may not be eczema at all, and nappy rash or eczema, how to tell the difference is the faster way to sort that out.

Your cart is empty

Your cart

Estimated total