Survey on Faecal Microbiota Transplantation and Probiotic Use in Equine Practice in France and Belgium.

Probiotic use was reported by 82.1% of equine veterinarians surveyed in France and Belgium.

• 96 equine veterinarians participated, practicing in Belgium (52.1%), France (39.6%) or both (8.3%)
• Probiotic use was more frequent in field than clinical practice (OR = 3.61, 95% CI [1.09, 12.02], p = 0.036)
• Probiotic use was more frequent in France than Belgium (OR = 5.08, 95% CI [1.44, 17.94], p = 0.012)
• Probiotics were used for chronic diarrhoea (88.0%), acute diarrhoea (67.6%) and inflammatory bowel diseases (45.9%)

Most veterinarians correctly defined probiotics, but a notable minority misidentified non-probiotic products as probiotics.

• 83.3% of veterinarians defined probiotics well
• 16.7% misidentified non-probiotic products as probiotics
• Cross-sectional survey design using descriptive statistics, chi-square tests and logistic regression models

FMT was used by 76.0% of equine veterinarians, mainly occasionally and therapeutically.

• FMT use was more common in clinical than field practice (OR = 4.79, 95% CI [1.03, 22.27], p = 0.046)
• FMT was used mainly occasionally and therapeutically rather than prophylactically
• FMT protocols varied considerably across practitioners

Donor testing before FMT was performed by only a minority of veterinarians despite most prioritizing infection-free donors in theory.

• 58.3% of veterinarians prioritized infection-free donors in theory
• Only 22.5% actually tested donors before performing FMT
• Among those who did test donors, coprology was the most commonly used method (93.8%)
• Veterinarians who tested donors reported higher perceived efficacy of FMT (p = 0.0029)

Treatment satisfaction with FMT was generally positive but estimated success rates varied among practitioners.

• Treatment satisfaction was generally positive across respondents
• Estimated success rates varied considerably between practitioners
• The variability in protocols and donor testing practices may contribute to inconsistent outcomes
• The authors concluded that standardized FMT protocols are needed to improve outcomes and consistency

The study had potential limitations including selection bias due to voluntary participation and limited generalizability.

• Participation was voluntary, introducing potential selection bias
• Generalizability might be limited by geographic focus on France and Belgium
• Sample size of 96 veterinarians was described as informative but in need of expansion
• Cross-sectional design limits causal inference