On the other hand , cyclosporine and tacrolimus have a different impact on cardiovascular risk factors with tacrolimus having a better profile on arterial tension and lipid metabolism and cyclosporine on glucose metabolism .
Cyclosporine: advantages versus disadvantages vis-à-vis tacrolimus. Despite a different molecular structure and biochemical properties, cyclosporine and tacrolimus--by inhibiting calcineurin activity--have been shown in the previous two decades of solid organ transplantation to be well tolerated and effective immunosuppressants. Initial randomized clinical trials showed a lower incidence of acute rejection in tacrolimus than in cyclosporine-treated patients, in combination with steroids and azathioprine. But in conjunction with mycophenolate mofetil, the difference in the incidence of acute rejection episodes is less clear. In general, short- and medium-term outcome variables (1-year serum creatinine, graft and patient survival) with cyclosporine and tacrolimus are excellent, and (almost) identical, with both substances having the same intrinsic nephrotoxic potential. On the other hand , cyclosporine and tacrolimus have a different impact on cardiovascular risk factors with tacrolimus having a better profile on arterial tension and lipid metabolism and cyclosporine on glucose metabolism . However, at present no data are available to discern that these differences in risk profile alter patient or graft survival or long-term cardiovascular morbidity/mortality. Therefore, prospective long-term trials are needed to study the quantitative impact of different immunosuppressive agents and concomitant cardiovascular risk factors on long-term patient and graft survival, before evidence-based (patient, graft, or cardiovascular) risk reduction can be firmly claimed by tailoring calcineurin inhibitors.
### Instruction:
            Given the context about compound efficacy for the given treatment mentioned within the input, mentioned the compounds 
            that can co-occur for the mentioned treatment

            ### Input:
            Cyclosporine: advantages versus disadvantages vis-à-vis tacrolimus. Despite a different molecular structure and biochemical properties, cyclosporine and tacrolimus--by inhibiting calcineurin activity--have been shown in the previous two decades of solid organ transplantation to be well tolerated and effective immunosuppressants. Initial randomized clinical trials showed a lower incidence of acute rejection in tacrolimus than in cyclosporine-treated patients, in combination with steroids and azathioprine. But in conjunction with mycophenolate mofetil, the difference in the incidence of acute rejection episodes is less clear. In general, short- and medium-term outcome variables (1-year serum creatinine, graft and patient survival) with cyclosporine and tacrolimus are excellent, and (almost) identical, with both substances having the same intrinsic nephrotoxic potential. On the other hand , cyclosporine and tacrolimus have a different impact on cardiovascular risk factors with tacrolimus having a better profile on arterial tension and lipid metabolism and cyclosporine on glucose metabolism . However, at present no data are available to discern that these differences in risk profile alter patient or graft survival or long-term cardiovascular morbidity/mortality. Therefore, prospective long-term trials are needed to study the quantitative impact of different immunosuppressive agents and concomitant cardiovascular risk factors on long-term patient and graft survival, before evidence-based (patient, graft, or cardiovascular) risk reduction can be firmly claimed by tailoring calcineurin inhibitors.

            ### Response:
            cyclosporine, tacrolimus, tacrolimus, cyclosporine
            