Objective: To evaluate the use of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), autologous conditioned serum (ACS), platelet‐rich plasma (PRP), and autologous protein solution (APS) for the treatment of equine musculoskeletal disease by diplomates of the American College of Veterinary Surgery (ACVS), and American College of Veterinary Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation (ACVSMR).Study design: Cross‐sectional study.Sample population: Diplomates (n= 423).Methods: An email link was sent to ACVS and ACVMR diplomates. A survey contained 59 questions regarding demographics, as well as indications, frequency, adverse effects, and limitations of use. Responses were analyzed using Fisher's exact test.Results: One hundred and fifty four surveys were analyzed. Years in practice and type of practice were not associated with biologic therapy use. PRP was the most used therapy (120/137; 87.5%). PRP and MSCs were most often administered intralesionally while ACS and APS were most often administered intra‐articularly. ACS (50/104; 48.1%) treatment was repeated commonly within 2 weeks of initial injection. MSCs (39/90; 43.3%) and PRP (38/100; 38%) were commonly repeated 1‐2 months after initial injection and APS was typically repeated >4 months after initial injection (21/53; 39.6%). Local inflammation and expense were the most common adverse effect and limitation of use.Conclusion: Diplomates most commonly utilized PRP and MSC intralesionally for soft‐tissue injuries, and ACS and ACP intra‐articularly for joint injury. Protocols for repeated administration varied widely. Local inflammation was a clinical concern with the use of biologics.Clinical significance: Biologic therapies are used commonly by ACVS and ACVSMR diplomates for soft tissue and joint disease.

BACKGROUND: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and mesenchymal stromal or stem cells (MSCs) have been investigated as treatments for equine tendon and ligament injuries, but little consensus exists on the efficacy of these treatments. The study sought to evaluate the efficacy of PRP and MSC treatments by systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. Inclusion criteria required an original, peer-reviewed study where horses were administered MSCs or PRP (or both), and a comparator group was described. Studies were assessed for risk of bias and study quality. Random effects meta-analysis with inverse variance weighting was used to calculate pooled estimates of the ORs for the primary outcomes of return to performance and reinjury. RESULTS: The search criteria identified 764 unique studies, and 21 studies met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. Seventeen studies were further assessed for the primary outcomes of return to performance and reinjury rate within a meta-analysis. Meta-analyses revealed no increase in the likelihood of a return to performance with any of the biologic treatments. However, MSCs and MSCs administered concurrently with PRP provide a reduced risk of reinjury. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The current study identified a decrease in reinjury rate in horses administered MSCs or a combination of MSCs and PRP for tendinopathy and desmopathy. However, results should be interpreted with consideration of the heterogeneity of findings, poor study quality, and high risk of bias in the majority of studies.