Thank you very much for that presentation. Welcome, everyone, to the report for the first quarter of 2021. We had an amazing quarter. I must just say that the whole team at Q-linea should really be proud of our accomplishments. I'll go through a number of them, of course, in the presentation. If we move to next slide, we have our disclaimer in case me or Anders will make any forward-looking statements. We move on to slide number three, which is a brief overview of Q-linea and the main activities for the first quarter. Our goal at Q-linea is really to develop disruptive solutions for faster infectious disease diagnostics. The first product is targeting bloodstream infections, or sepsis, being the most prominent application for that. We have grown over the quarter according to plan, with around 146 employees and consultants. We had, as I mentioned in the start, an amazingly strong quarter. First of all, we could provide very positive interim results for our European clinical study for ASTar, focusing on sepsis. We also received the first commercial order from Thermo Fisher Scientific, valued over SEK 8 million. Of course, we achieved this before the CE mark, which I think indicates the commitment and the trust in the product. Where we are right now is, of course, in pre-market activities, moving now into market activities from the announcement we had earlier this week, and I will comment on that later in the presentation. We're really finalizing all materials to get ready to enter the commercial phase. We have also some really positive development of our next generation development product, which is our portable culturing technology. I will not talk so much about that during this call, but please follow us and follow the development of that product as such. If we move to the next slide. As I mentioned, sepsis is our first priority. Sepsis is a global health crisis. It's the most common cause of death at our hospitals. A person worldwide will die every third second from sepsis. What you really need to do when you have a patient entering sepsis, perhaps progressing to septic shock, is to treat the underlying infection. Sepsis is caused by an infection you have somewhere in the body. You might have a skin wound, you might have pneumonia. Bacteria will then leak into the bloodstream, and for reasons that are not typically fully understood, our own immune system can then dramatically overreact to these bacteria in the bloodstream and start attacking your own body and shutting down organ after organ and could lead to severe follow-up conditions or death. It's also very expensive to treat patients with sepsis, because when you progress into septic shock, you of course also move into the intensive care unit. You have a staff of physicians and healthcare staff helping you to survive and combat that infection. As we have seen over the last year, and we are still in this big corona pandemic, we also know that intensive care beds are expensive, and we have too few of them. This is a big problem. If we then move to the next slide. When we look at sepsis as such, I mentioned the leading cause of death. When we look at Europe and U.S., around half a million people will die every year. Really why we need improved diagnostic method is that when you diagnose a person with sepsis, you start empiric therapy, meaning you as a physician will do your best estimate on how to fight this particular infection. In around 50% of the cases, since you are lacking diagnostics at that location, the patient actually received inappropriate treatment. Even worse, in around 20% of the cases, the patients will have died before you get the correct diagnosis on what antibiotics or antimicrobials should be used to treat that patient. This is really where ASTar comes in, making a dramatic improvement, reducing time to really tailor the treatment to the most narrow antibiotics for that particular patient infections. I'll come back to some of the health economic benefits that have been shown in more rapid diagnostics. Apart from sepsis, the first application, we have perhaps an even bigger problem that we as a society need to fight, and that's antimicrobial resistance. As you know, bacteria has become more and more resistant to the line of drugs we have to treat infections. This is partly due to overuse of antibiotics, both in humans but also in agriculture use. It has been presented as the biggest threat to mankind. There are some really disturbing numbers here that we need to tackle. Of course, if we have rapid diagnostics and can have evidence-based prescription of antibiotics, we can really reduce unnecessary prescription and use of antibiotics, and that will of course help reduce antimicrobial resistance. If you look at the problem as such, in 2016, around 700,000 people died from untreatable infections. It has been indicated that if we don't change the way we treat, change diagnostics, in 30 years, that number will go up to 10 million people. This is mind-boggling numbers, and it's very important to start to right now. We also see that ASTar could be one piece of that puzzle in help fighting antimicrobial resistance. If we then move on to slide number six. This is an overview of the current traditional diagnostic flow for septic patients. You can see that from the gray upper panel. I will not go through the steps today during this call, but you can see that it's a multi-day, multi-step process. What you are aiming for is you start treatment day one, of course, then you can see the green circle, in this case, indicating day four, can sometimes also be day three. That's when you have the diagnostic answer on how you should treat the infection. As I mentioned earlier in the call, around 20% will actually have died before you receive the results today. If you look at the lower part, this is where ASTar can make a dramatic improvement for two reasons. First of all, you see that you have a lot fewer steps that need to be performed by the lab staff. Today, when we are, for instance, in a pandemic, you know that we have a very high workload on the staff in the microbiology labs. Of course, if we can reduce that and make it easier to start analysis, that's a very important criteria. Secondly, of course, perhaps more importantly, is that you can find the right treatment therapy much faster. Time is really what counts for septic patients. If we look at ASTar overall, we have really designed it around four pillars, and we have designed it in very close relationship to hospitals, Europe and U.S., to really understand what's their need, what's the most pressing point, what needs to be addressed in a fully automated system for infectious disease diagnostics. While it needs to be easy to use, we have designed ASTar to be fully automated. It has very low hands-on time, and we have a random access workflow. This means, of course, that you can utilize the lab staff in a very efficient manner. You can also run the analysis at any given time point, since you don't need to have highly trained personnel to start tests. Since we have random access, it means that at any given time point where ASTar has free capacity, you can start a run. All very important factors. Secondly, of course, it needs to be fast. We present results from both the blood cultures within around six hours. We have a high throughput. We can run 12 patient samples in parallel in the system at maximum capacity. Of course, it also needs to be comprehensive. You need to have a large coverage, both in antibiotics or antimicrobials, but also the concentration ranges, so you know if you have a wild type bacteria or very resistant bacteria. We have really designed and had a goal to have a very comprehensive panel. Also you should cover the various types of bacteria you find in infections. We have also designed ASTar to support fastidious and non-fastidious bacteria. Also we have built the system for future. It has already been built to handle other sample types such as isolates, but also other sample types such as urine. We really see that this could be a strong and interesting development of ASTar going forward. Of course, the last point, you need to have accurate results. ASTar delivers two MIC values at a very high reproducibility. The MIC value, that's the concentration that kill or inhibit growth of bacteria. That's the highest precision you can provide in a susceptibility test. If we look at slide number eight, this is one very important part. This is a testimonial from Ehsan Ghaderi at Uppsala University Hospital, who tested the system, of course, during last year and participated in the clinical study. It's really supposed to be simple to use, put the barcode on from the patient, add the sample. You then approach ASTar, you have a graphical user interface that will guide you through the rest of the process of loading and starting the sample. As I mentioned, it could all be done within around two minutes. In this case, of course, the staff can then continue to do other important tasks at the microbiology lab. If we then move to slide number nine, here we can see three independent health economic studies that have really looked at the effects of providing 24 hours faster diagnostics compared to the current workflow. I think the number that strikes me the most is the reduction in mortality. Providing the right treatment for this patient group can dramatically then increase survival rate of these patients. Secondly, in the middle, of course, if you can move from this initial broad-spectrum therapy to a narrow-spectrum targeted therapy faster. Not only you provide less side effects for the patient, of course, but you can also reduce the pressure for super infections, opportunistic infections at the hospital, and this is, of course, very important for antimicrobial resistance. Thirdly, one report indicated that if you can do it 24 hours faster, you could on average save two days in the intensive care bed. Of course, these are very expensive beds, so if you can get the patient out of these expensive beds on average two days faster, not only do you increase the capacity of those beds, you also save a lot of money. As I mentioned, ASTar can provide around 24- 48 hours faster diagnostics. We think this is a very important part. Of course, we are now planning to enter our own health economic study outcome studies to look into this. If we then take the next slide, we will actually move into the highlights for the first quarter. As we did present was very strong interim results from the CE-IVD study, and they were all well above the required guidelines for approval here in Europe. We had an overall essential agreement above 94% and a category agreement over 97%. An essential agreement, as you can see, that you give the same concentration that kill or inhibit bacteria as a reference method, and a category agreement means that you provide the same treatment recommendation, so they divide it in S, I, and R categories. We also had a very high reproducibility of the system. What we then, of course, continued with during the quarter was to finalize the paperwork, the technical file, and some validation activities to apply for CE-IVD registration. As you saw, half the period down, we could do so very successfully. Apart from running the study in Europe, we're of course also planning to enter the U.S., and we can also sign the first party to participate in the U.S. study. If we then move to slide number 11, other important highlight was, of course, that we received the first order of ASTar. The value was over SEK 8 million. We can also disclose some of the structure with the binding period and part of prepayment. Of course, another very important aspect has been to work together with Thermo Fisher Scientific, our real worldwide partner in the launch of ASTar, to finalize message material and so on. That has been very successful, and I'm really happy and excited to work with Thermo Fisher, i t's a great team. I think both sides have tackled working electronically very well during the pandemic. Apart from material, of course, training is important, so we are now escalating activities to train both sales and service personnel. Again, I think both teams have done a great job in accomplishing this on two sides of the water, so to speak. If I then move into slide number 12. This is really an important key highlight after the period end, and we could send the press release earlier this week that we have now achieved CE-IVD with the ASTar, with actually even a bit stronger results than our interim results. The essential agreement was 94.7%, the categorical agreement was 97.6%, and overall reproducibility was 99.6%. What I'm particularly proud of is that when you look at the ASTar instrument and the ASTar Gram-negative kit, they truly offer the broadest combination of antimicrobials and dilution ranges in a single analysis for Gram-negative bacteria of all systems that we can see are on the market today. We also deliver true MIC results. Again, very proud to do this. We are, of course, not happy. We're not sitting still. We will continue to make the panel even better, of course now take the next step with additional tests to ASTar. If we then move to slide number 13, we are of course now running full speed ahead with commercial activities. It says pre-marketing here on the slide, we just have the CE mark, it's now moving from pre-marketing to marketing, of course. We are still continuing to train personnel, final preparation of market material. Of course, I am a strong believer that a long-term success of a product such as ASTar, which has a huge unmet need in a wide variety of markets, is to first do a controlled evaluation make sure that all the early potential problems are solved, and do that with key customers, then enter in the next stage of a sort of a fully-fledged launch. Of course, that's what I had from my side. I will now continue to move to slide number 14 and talk about the effects of the corona pandemic. As you all know, we are not through the pandemic yet. We can perhaps see the world becoming a little bit brighter. We see vaccination ongoing. Actually, for the first time, we have seen some slight effects of the corona pandemic on the company operations. We've seen a slight increase in sick absence. Also, I would say positively, most of these cases have been affected outside the company and not within the company. We do all what's in our efforts to have the people that needs to be on site to work safely, and of course, have many people work from home. We have seen no major changes in timeline due to the pandemic, but of course, this can always change. Of course, what we can see what might happen, although I would say that last year, I think we pressed on extremely strong through the pandemic. Of course, we can see delays in upcoming studies, for instance, a U.S. study. It could affect commercial activities. It could increase expense levels depending on all of the above. These are risk factors that I don't think anyone can avoid. We follow the development carefully, and I think we have done a great job so far of tackling the effects of the pandemic. I do hope that we will see a world coming into a more open environment, more open society coming into autumn. That was the last slide from my part of the presentation. I will now hand over to Anders Lundin, our CFO, to discuss the financials for the first quarter. Thank you, Jonas. I will summarize the financial report in the Q1 report in three slides. I will start off with slide 15, which is the numbers from the income statement for the first quarter. As you can see, we did not report any net sales in this quarter. The operating result was close to -SEK 64 million compared to close to SEK 56 million last year, first quarter, and that is mainly driven by increased personnel costs. We have been recruiting for the last year quite heavily. The average number of people during this first quarter were higher than last year. We reported the loss after tax of SEK 63.2 million. Earnings per share before and after dilution were amounted on -SEK 2.34. If I switch over to slide 16, the most important lines in our balance sheet is the cash equivalents, SEK 12.5 million, compared to SEK 10.1 million, which was by the end of the year last year. It's a comparison by end of 2020. Since last year's right issue, we have surplus liquidity, and we have placed that in short-term investments. That's interest funds mainly. We have listed bonds. We have a short non-current part of the bonds, and we have short-term bonds that are due within 12 months. The short-term investments was SEK 106 million, and the current portion of the non-current asset was close to SEK 83 million. We have long-term bonds of SEK 73 million. We have also been working on the launch inventory, and that is now SEK 16.3 million all in all. The majority of that is finished goods. There are, of course, some raw material and working process, but the main part is finished goods ready to support our coming launch. If I switch over to slide 17, that is the cash flow statement for the first quarter. We had cash flow from operating activities was -SEK 56 million, compared to -SEK 59 million. The difference here is that we had a lower operating result than last year, but we had an offset by improvement in the working capital compared to last year. If we go to investing activities, we have SEK 58.5 million compared to SEK 61.6 million. The majority over here, we were reorganizing our bond portfolio. We sold bonds with short terms and bought bonds with longer terms. That is basically a shift. Both transactions gave a shift in those two lines. The financing activities was - 0.1, just amortization of some loans we have. If we summarize the cash equivalent, the short-term investment, and the bonds are amounting all in all to close to SEK 275 million, compared to the SEK 331 million we had by the year-end. The board assessment of this balance is that it will cover running the company for at least the next 12 months. With that slide and those words, I summarize the financial reporting. Thank you very much, Anders, for that. We are now opening for questions. Thank you. If you wish to ask a question, please dial zero one on your telephone keypad now to enter the queue. Once your name's announced, you can ask your question. If you find it answered before your turn to speak, you can dial zero two to cancel. Our first question comes from the line of Ulrik Trattner of Carnegie. Please go ahead, your line is open. Thank you very much. First of all, congratulations on the CE approval of ASTar. I have a few questions, if I may. If we can start off with the technical filing of ASTar. Just in your words, how important is the wide antibiotic panel and the inclusion of fastidious pathogens, especially since this, according to my knowledge at least, is the first fully automated AST system, including fastidious pathogens? Just your take on that would be my first question. Okay. First of all, thank you, Ulrik, for the congrats. We're really happy from our side as well. To come back to your question, what I think is important to have a broad coverage overall is, of course, if you want to act upon a rapid result, you need to have a good coverage. You don't ideally want to wait for too many follow-up traditional results to act and change upon that. As you said, when we look at the market today, if you do the combination of antibiotics, dilution ranges, we clearly see that we have the broadest panel in our opinion. Of course, we are not a company sitting still. We are still moving on to expand the panel even further. We have programs already initiated for that. The true goal is for physicians to be able to treat patients effectively, no matter if it's an ICU patient or an ER patient. I think it's very important. On the comment of fastidious pathogens, they are not extremely common for Gram-negatives, but it is an important group. In many cases, when you have a fastidious infection, first of all, you can have a very rapid escalation of the progression of sepsis. I think it's important, but I think it's also important from another standpoint that we have really now been able to show that our commitment from day one to include as much as possible from various pathogens to various antimicrobials seems that we are on a very good path with the system. I must again say really thank you to the entire team at Q-linea that has worked really full speed ahead of doing that with a great commitment. You can't do this without a great team. That really goes out to everyone in the company. Just on the same note, what has been the feedback so far? We know that you've been out talking to hospitals in the Nordics. How important do they believe that this wide antibiotic panel is? It's obvious that this will be regional differences in terms of what type of antibiotics is used, as well as resistance. Suggest how important do they say that this wide antibiotic panel is in comparison to what they have been currently using? I think that first of all, some of them are a little unused to it. When we look, for instance, at academic hospitals, we could provide answers on 10 more antimicrobials. Of course, it gives you now much more of a wealth of treatment options to have more coverage. I would say that we have very strong feedback from the customer on that. Also, I would mention that the ease of use of the system, that anyone can run it, and it's really little hands-on time. I would say that these two in combination is really what provides the good value proposition, in my opinion, from ASTar. As you correctly mentioned, having a broad panel means also for us as a company that we can have a panel that could work in the southern part of Europe as well in the Nordics without having to have different panels to choose from. I think that's also very much important. I would say that we get very positive feedback overall from the various parts. I think also comes a little bit that when we started developing the product, we really started developing together with our future customers, and put their feedback and filtered that into the system really from day one. I think that in that sense, we're really trying to meet the goals of the customers in an ever-changing world with even more resistant bacteria coming up. It's clearly deemed important for sure. That's great. Thanks. You emphasize a controlled launch phase. Could you just please shed some more light on what that actually means and how long that would initially take? As well as you've already received your first commercial order from Thermo Fisher. Is it reasonable to assume that the full order of these SEK 8 million could be installed already during Q2, or is that too ambitious? First of all, of course, as you know, we and Thermo Fisher are different companies. They will of course plan their launch activities, and we do as well. Of course, we talk about it together, and it's really my opinion. I've been working in this field for some time, and I think that we have always planned the company to be a long-term, truly successful company. I think that the best way to do that is, as you say, we do a controlled phase where we test the system in a little bit smaller group, wider than we have done so far, obviously, and really understand that are there anything we need to address with the system before we go full speed ahead? Also, of course, get opinion on good key opinion leaders with their thoughts on the system. Really, the phase of doing that, I would say, enables us and Thermo Fisher to really be confident in really pressing on in sort of a phase II. The timeline for that is, of course, as fast as possible. That's not the answer you want. From my judgment, my estimation, I would say that what we're looking here is months and definitely not six months or years. We're talking of a shorter time of perspective as we have, of course, also tested ASTar outside earlier. I think it's important to really see, and it's not just ASTar, it's also, of course, we as a company, Thermo Fisher as a company, to also work as a smooth operation and be ready to take the system for the next level. I think that's the way to pay for long-term success. To comment on the first order and the number of systems that could be installed, I would rather not comment on that, Ulrik. I know you would like to have an answer. What I can assure you is that both we and Thermo Fisher Scientific are really eager to get this product out to the market, of course, as fast as possible, and after having that first control phase really as efficient as possible. We will not rest here. It's very hard to give an exact timeline, I'd rather not do that. Fair enough. I think I got most of it. The line is sort of breaking up. Just move on to perhaps give some clarification on the U.S. study and what is left in order for you to initiate that study, as well as you have already contracted your first site. Is the ambition to include additional sites, and when are we to expect that to be concluded? That would be my next question. Yes. Right. Of course, when we signed the first site, that was important. That was really one of the keys to get the study started. As you know, FDA has allowed us to perform a big part of the study here in Europe. The next phase is really for us as a company to ramp up activities and start the U.S. study. We are also, of course, talking to very good, very renowned hospitals to participate in the study. We don't need to have them contracted really to start the study, since we can actually do that internally and sort of mirror the strategy we had for the European study. Of course, we will announce those sites as soon as we have put the pen to the paper. We don't actually have to wait for that to start the study. We are definitely moving way closer to have the study start also for the U.S. Would you call that the timeline would be quite similar to that of the European study, or is it any major differences before you can actually file for a 510(k) approval? I would say that overall, it's quite similar to the European study in overall scope. We have a little bit more analytical study requirements for the U.S. study, looking at interferences and so on. It's in a sense, a little bit larger study to coordinate. Timeline would look, I would say, similar for sure. Maybe it's a little bit longer in the U.S. Of course, we also need to follow how the coronavirus pandemic sort of settles, which I do hope it does, so it makes it easier to travel for us also to the U.S. No major changes, I would say. Great. Thanks. Two last questions. You mentioned, and highlighted in the report, that you are ready to initiate a pivotal trial for your transportable culture cabinet. When should we get some more clarification on the scope of this study in terms of number of samples that needs to be included and timelines? Yeah. Right. We had a very strong development of the portable culturing technology during the first quarter, and we really sort of upped our timeline a little bit. As we said in the Q1 report, is that we really plan to have the study going on already next year. I think coming back with some more granularity on the timeline of that, something to expect. I would not say necessarily during Q2, but we'll share some more of the very strong data we have on that. I think we'll come back after the summer with some more details on the timeline. I must say that I'm impressed really with the development efforts we have made and the progress we made on that technology and also the initial feedback we have received. I'm really glad to see, of course, ASTar now coming to CE mark, but also already now be able to start detail planning for really a next product with a very interesting opportunity coming up. I think you will see continuously more information on that coming up over the next six months or so, both on the product development efforts and also in study preparations. There will be no exact timeline for that, but I'm sure we will continue to add more of that. Also we actually wanted really to focus on ASTar now, which we have been doing, but that's not everything we do in the company. Again, as I said, we plan long term, and I think that being able to present this technology that can really start shaving off time is something I'm truly proud of, as well as our board. Great. Looking forward to get some more information perhaps in the fall for the culturing cabinet. Just the last question, this might be addressed to you, Anders. What you said, I'm not sure if I interpreted that correctly, you have a little bit more than SEK 270 million in cash and equivalents currently on your balance sheet, you said that that would be sufficient to finance operations over the next 12 months. Does that entail that there will be a significant cost ramp up, or should we interpret it as the current balance sheet actually finance the company well beyond the next 12 months? No. We said 12 months. That is the requirement that we have to say if we are below or over 12 months financing situation. The SEK 274 million will take us at least 12 months forward. That's for sure. Okay. Yeah. Great. With current plans. Yes. Yeah. I understand. Okay. Those were all the questions for me. Thank you very much, both Jonas and Anders, and once again, congratulations on the approval in Europe. Thank you very much, Ulrik. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Johan Unnérus of Redeye. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Thank you. Johan Unnérus, Redeye here. Congratulations to good start of 2021. It looks like it could continue. My first questions will be regarding the stage launch and during this first period, two to four, two to five months, as you alluded to, which is your prime area? Is it ICU, ER? Is it possible to say anything on type of patients? Is this sort of early stage septic patients, or is this something that you're not prepared to share at this stage? Okay. Thank you very much for the question. I would say that first of all, the initial phase, as we said, I don't think we really plan to segment patients. As soon as you have a positive blood culture, ASTar can truly analyze that. For sure, it's interesting to see the effects on ICU versus ER patients. I think the product itself could be used for both early and, of course, late stage patients. It's a little bit too early to provide that information. I think also I must announce that for the major part, of course, Thermo Fisher Scientific will be responsible for their part. I can't really comment on that strategy from Q-linea's behalf. I don't say you have to segment a certain group. I think we'll look quite broad for this type of evaluation. Thank you. Regarding the U.S. study and the requirement, if the FDA and ISO seem to be pretty similar in this for your candidate, ASTar. Is there any reason to believe or suspect that there could be any difference in the patient cohort or in the standard of care, that there could be any reason for that sort of difference in outcome as the position was very high in Europe? Right. Thank you for that. I would stick my chin out a little bit and say no. The precision reproducibility is more or less built into the system. I do expect, of course, that we'll see much more 24/7 use of the system since that is more predominantly used in the U.S. Of course, a study is always uncertain until you have done the study and completed the registration. As I also mentioned, we think we have an excellent panel, but we will continue, of course, to work to improve that panel. I think that will also come to benefit to the U.S. On a high level, I really don't see that we were to expect some different type of results from the U.S. study, at least not with my knowledge right now. I would say it should look quite similar to Europe. Thank you. That is useful. Regarding the price and the model, is it possible to shine some light on the split on consumable and system, and also is the service contract in-built? It seems to be like a special machine set up almost made that there is not so much service to be done. There is obviously an education training stage in the beginning and perhaps recurring to some degree. Right. Yeah. The pricing, of course, is something that will be obvious quite soon, but I can't disclose that today, really, on the instrument system. In general, of course, it's always overall long-term success means that you have a good revenue on the consumables, that's for sure. I think also, although ASTar is extremely easy to use from an operator standpoint, which is what we have been working really hard on, I think that you should expect that will be some teething problems initially, some software bugs that needs to be fixed, that needs to be operated. I think that happens to every new system being launched. I have not at least seen any that really has passed on. I think also we are equipped to do that and really built in and serve on the robustness of the system. I think that's commitment both we and Thermo Fisher have, and I can't see anything there that's put me to be nervous. Of course, we have also been running ASTar quite a lot now, and it's a very strong performer, I would say, overall, as a complete package. I think that when you come forward in future quarterly reports, I think also some more of the financial terms will become more obvious. Also, when we start sharing a bit more of the marketing materials, of course, the CE mark is very fresh now. We will be able to disclose a little bit more about that type of pricing. Looking at service for these type of instruments, what you typically see, at least what I'm used to, is that you see a service contract where you might have a bronze, silver, gold type strategies. It all depends on how fast you need to have service, how important is it to be serviced on the spot. Of course, we are looking into that from our side, and of course, Thermo Fisher is doing that on their side as well. I can't give you any detail, but on an average level, that is what you might expect from a similar type system. Thank you. It seems like the first stage seems to be rather short. Are you confident that you will be ready for volume delivery in two to four months? Well, if you look at everything, I think we are ramping up to be able to support the plans we have together with Thermo Fisher. Of course, we plan our production capacity and volume according to the long-term plans we have together. I'm really confident that we can support any type of scenario that's coming up with us. We've also chosen a good partner in Sanmina for instrument manufacturing. We know that they are a worldwide company with a good reputation that are also ready to handle volume. I think also, as Anders mentioned, we have also actually been building some launch stock to be ready to handle those situations. I personally feel very confident in the team to deliver according to expectations, for sure. Thank you. Finally, you mentioned that you will have a sort of stage and handpicked approach to this first stage, and you also mentioned that you have collaborated in your development phase with several institutions or hospitals earlier. Presumably, you have a specific pipeline with these centers that you are likely to engage now of this first phase. No, of course. You're correct. We have been working with a number of customers for a long period of time. We at Q-linea have also been doing pre-market activities, sensing the interest of the product, so to speak, for the Swedish market. As you know, we have a very good partner with Thermo Fisher Scientific. I'm not really at liberty to describe their pipeline, their funnel, as you understand. You are right, of course, when you do a launch, I think it's always better if you can, in a sense, handpick customers to really make sure that you get the most out of the first phase before you go broader. I think that's a good, sound strategy for any company to go on. I can't give any more details, but I'm sure we will be able to announce more of this as we come in now in the commercial phase. Thank you. That's all from me. Thank you very much for your questions. Thank you. We currently have one further question in the queue. Just as a reminder to participants, if you do wish to ask a question, please dial zero one on your telephone keypads now. Our next question comes from the line of Adam Karlsson of ABG Sundal Collier. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Hi, Jonas. Hi, Anders. Thank you for the presentation, and thank you for taking my questions. Just a couple from me, if I could. You spoke about the whole health economic potential. Now I'm just curious to hear if you've gotten any sense from potential future customers that you're talking to, whether they are very much looking towards your health economic studies, the internal one that you're preparing? Whether that's something that they're holding out on potentially, that they want to see those study results, or whether they're happy to overlook that for the time being, and then whether that's something that will just be a complement going forward? Right. First of all, thank you for the question. I think it's a good question. I would say yes and no to that. I would say that from our experience, what we have seen talking to customers is that there's such a big need for these type of systems. I truly think there are two types of customers. One part are really eager to get going. They see the big unmet need, the improvement that could be made. I don't think they will wait, for sure. I don't have any indication on that. I think when you then look in a very broad perspective, again, we're talking about a long-term commercialization of this product overall. I think there are some that will look into health economics to understand it better, and I think also to understand that at their particular hospitals, because hospitals differ and they have different needs. Of course, very importantly, we are planning, and have done for some time, our own health economic studies based on ASTar. We need, of course, to wait for the CE mark. This is, again, something that I would be happy to announce a little bit more when we come into that. I can't see that hindering the launch for now. I have not heard anything like that. I think long term, it is very important to show health economic data supporting the product as such. I think the question is, I don't think we'll see a hesitation for the first round of customers. That's not what I've seen. Okay. Thank you. In terms of that internal health economic study, do you have a rough idea of the timeline for that, when that might be coming about, and we might be hearing about ASTar or results even? Yes. We have a very precise timeline internally. Of course, I'm expecting you to be able to hear some news on that study fairly soon, disclosing more of the study as such. When you look at the health economic study, typically, I would say that you can estimate that to run for one year or so, depending, of course, what are the variables, what are you looking for. Of course, also depending on how you plan it, you can really also anticipate to see some interim results coming up beforehand to really see that we are tracking the right direction. On a high level, I would say that it will not be in a too distant future that we'll hear more about our internal study. If everything goes well, of course, hopefully we'll be able to provide some more data on that during the second half of the year as I'm coming into 2022. This is an important aspect for us internally. We have a very good Chief Medical Officer. I think that we take this very seriously. We have not only excellent microbiologists, but also clinicians, because it's very important to understand the two main stakeholders in treating these patients. You have the physician and their needs for faster diagnostic, what do they need. You have the microbiologist to deliver those results in an efficient way and, of course, in a very productive, comprehensive way. I think we try to look at both these sides of the coin. It's still the same coin, but they have different opinions what's needed. I think that's something we've done a very good job at in the company so far. Of course, plan to continue to do. Okay. Great. A question on the U.S. study and regulatory process. Just whether you have gotten any feedback or any sense from the FDA that they might have longer processing times, handling times on account of the pandemic and backlogs associated with this. Is that anything that you've heard or gotten any feedback about? Well, typically, FDA, in my opinion, does not provide such guidelines to individual companies. What we have seen over the last year is that we have seen longer times for clearance. With the last year, we had a tremendous amount of tests for primarily PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2, that current variant of the virus. Of course, that's expanded. We see a lot of vaccine trials. I think in a sense, that we are now moving into a more steady phase in the FDA approval process, or not approval, but clearance process. I think it's also worthwhile mentioning that when you look at the FDA's top priorities, sepsis and infectious diseases is really one of their top areas to focus on. I think that as you look at it's a number one cost driver in the U.S. for septic patients. We see a lot of suffering and a lot of people dying for it. I think it's up high on the agenda. I think we have had a very good response from FDA when we have had questions for the study design and so on. They have been very responsive, I would say, in that aspect. We have no clear guidelines, but I think it's safe to say that at least so far, they had a little bit longer period to do analysis because they had so much to do. I truly, hopefully see that this will actually go down when we come into the autumn. At least most of the direction we see on the pandemic is that with increased vaccination, we are now better suited to test. I truly hope that we will see a better scenario coming forward. I think it's a little bit higher on the risk, but it's really too early to give something exact at this point. Okay. No, perfect. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. As there are no further questions at this time, I'll hand back to our speakers for the closing comments. Okay. Thank you very much for that. Thanks for all the questions. I would just close this Q1 report with saying that we are now truly looking forward to taking the product out to the commercialization phase. Again, I must say to all the Q-linea team that listen, it's the best team to have to bring a product out, and really look forward to the next phase of the company development. With that, I will conclude the session from me and Anders, and hopefully talk to you again.