Revised first review below.

My first impression: The title and abstract succinctly portray the content of the publication.

It could be helpful to delineate the outcomes in the "aim" section (i.e., death, hospitalization etc.) rather than a generic statement of "clinical outcomes."

The references utilized are adequate and cover a broad array of topics, except for one suggestion: Many clinicians are concerned about cardiovascular side effects when using testosterone, as well as patients afflicted by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Therefore, I feel it might be helpful to include one reference (and statement in the introduction section, as detailed below) on cardiovascular disease when using testosterone replacement therapy (TRT)-

Introduction section: The introduction section provides a logical step-by-step explanation as to why testosterone could either positively or negatively effect COVID-19 clinical course and that men are more commonly affected by COVID-19 than women. It also touches on open areas of research where testosterone could impact COVID-19, as well as that there is controversy over testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) in COVID-19. Good!

Nonetheless, I feel that an additional sentence on the controversies surrounding testosterone´s cardiovascular effects would have been helpful as I mention above.

Methodology section: The methodology section is concise and well-written.

Nonetheless, it is my opinion that there are several areas that could be modified. First, the beginning date of the examined period is unclear. The authors write that the patients investigated were diagnosed with COVID-19 and on TRT "during March to May 19, 2020" - what March date are they referring to?

Second, it is unclear if the controls are hypogonadic or not.

Third, it is stated that most of the patients on TRT had a diagnosis of hypogonadism. It is unclear to me if they were propensity-matched with controls who were also hypogonadic or if this point was neglected. A clarifying statement would be helpful.

Fourth, comorbidities analyzed should have included obesity as this affects COVID-19 outcome.

Fifth, clinical outcome measures could have included days of hospitalization and a more nuanced look at the type of ventilation used (high- versus low-flow oxygen, non-invasive versus invasive ventilation).

Results section: The results are well-described and the two tables clear.

It could have been beneficial to give the p-values up to two decimal points in table 1, i.e. instead of putting down .1 as a p-value, writing .07 or .12.

Discussion section: The discussion is well-balanced and appropriately written.

I would have recommended stressing that there was a trend towards improved outcome (non-statistically significant) in patients on TRT. In this context, a statement that the numbers examined were not large enough to detect a statistical difference would have been helpful rather than a generic statement about "small sample" size as a limitation.